Support NeoGAF

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

Have you considered that it may come down to your rather peculiar taste in gaming, which isn't quite compatible with the general/reviewing audience? You see Banjo as a 10/10, whereas reviewers see the Banjo games by today's standards more as a 7/10. From what I remember, you also liked some Sonic games as well as a number of other titles which performed pretty badly in reviews.

When I played BK on 360, it felt like an old game starting with camera going over to controls, or even the gameplay design (you just walk aimlessly through a world trying to find stuff).

Particularly the gameplay element feels like something from the past - Rare probably trademarked the term "collectathon" during the N64 days. Most seemingly thought they are gone for good, those who liked them have Yooka-Laylee now.

Seriously?

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Don't get the point of this thread or half the responses. If you actually want an answer instead of just to preach to the choir and to pat each other on the back surely this is a thread that would be served when the game is actually out in the hands of the people you're looking for answers from?

Even if the game is legit bad and not "We dont like these games anymore" bad. I think this thread is good because... what if it is good?? I see on both sides like chanel.

 

[Harmen]

How does it compare to Jak and Daxter? To me, that was the genre evolved. Seamless world, no reset of worldstates (the resetting of "stars" that occurs in most n64 collectathons), and fluid and fastpaced gameplay along with the natural progression of technology (look Double Fine's lets play with Rubin, ND did some pretty clever stuff). Playing it next to the classic Rare titles it feels like the next generation for the genre. It really was a shame that very few AAA devs took on the genre beyond early ps2 years.


Also, the voice acting in this day and age is just really, really annoying instead of charming, and I grew up with it. And in the footage of Yooka Laylee the worlds look empty and flat compared to modern standards. No reason both of these things should happen in this day and age.

 

[Spieler Eins]

It's a false equivalence by reviewers, because the game's marketing focused so much on nostalgia. YL simply appears to be a mediocre game in general. Yet it wears "90s" on its sleeve so blatanty, the easiest conclusion people come to is that old games are now bad. Though in reality, many classics are still great and YL being mediocre actually changes nothing about that.

It doesn't help that this subgenre is underrepresented nowadays. I.e. if Mighty Number 9 came out before the 2D revival within the indie sector, I bet reviewers would have claimed that 2D platformers are simply outdated, not blaming the actual poor quality of MN9.

 

[hidys]

I hear this all the time about Isometric and Turn Based games, I really don't get it.

But the difference is that modern takes on those genres have actually done quite well in reviews. See Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2.

 

[Yoshi]

Collectathons were never good, but as a kid with limited money, these games gave you more stuff to do that could pad out games further. It's like they looked at Mario 64 and took away the wrong lessons.

So basically I get what the reviewers are saying. I disagree with the premise that the gameplay elements are bad because they're dated (people lob this at turn based games) - it's because the game design isn't very fun.

One may discuss if collectathon gameplay in itself is something that is fun; I'd say yes, it is (if it is done right, but this qualifier always applies), but I can live with the assassment that this kind of gameplay just is not fun. What I cannot live with is trying to muddle it by blanket stating it is a thing of the past, as if gameplay ideas just detoriated over time.

no its like buying a new mini cooper that turns out to be the same as the old mini cooper but with a new body.

it's missing the mod cons that the new mini cooper has ( automatic windows, air bags, cd player, air conditioning)

its still a mini cooper and it still succeeds as a car. but its not as good as its modern equivalent apart from the nostalgia it gives you.

But what is Banjo's modern equivalent? In fact, the camera controls of Banjo may not be optimal, but the game is designed with them taken into consideration, so even with today's improved camera algorithms, I still cannot see how this is such a huge detriment.

I just get a feeling from reviews like those that a group from the quasi-elite of gaming actively intends to limit variety in games design. At least as long as I just do not get any explanation that goes beyond "camera controls could be better", because, really, this is true for anything that is not super-linear and not Mario Sunshine either.

 

[Complicated]

Every open world game today has one of these games built into it, honestly. Most don't have a platforming focus, but then Rare collect-a-thon platformers aren't really about platforming challenge either. Collecting things in open world games can be a nice time-waster if I don't want to focus on story at the moment, but it's just not something a lot of people buy a game for these days.

 

[Yoshi]

Don't get the point of this thread or half the responses. If you actually want an answer instead of just to preach to the choir and to pat each other on the back surely this is a thread that would be better served when the game is actually out in the hands of the people you're looking for answers from? All you're gonna get is reassurances from the "Hur cinematic health regeneration" crowd that are extremely defensive about their pre-orders.

No, because this is abotu the more general statements. In fact, I have some reasons to worry about Yooka, because it does not look nearly as tight as Banjo in its design. But the statements are not "Yooka has not executed the collectathon gameplay well", but instead that it is too much stuck in the past and basically complaining about the general style of games, rather than the specific game itself. My question is less about Yooka's individual strengths and weaknesses, because it is obvious that reviewers that disregard the genre in its entirety are not a good source for that (similar to Sonic reviews that are so superficial that you can even see things like IGN being mad about the boost button in Sonic Adventure - which of course does not even exist), it is about the underlying claims about the genre and its classics.

 

[hodgy100]

are any of the reviews saying this genre doesnt work anymore?

im sure its more likely that they are saying that YL continues aspects of the genre that havent been improved since the 90's

new mario games still get high scores
other new games in related genres (like ratchet & clank) still get high scores.

 

[Peltz]

3D platformers with a collectathan focus are a VERY tricky genre. The level design really REALLY good or else the game feels very stale.

I have a feeling that the reviewers don't have as much of a problem with the genre as they think they do. And the issue is more that YL has poor/boring level design. Although movement/controls in the game looks good, the levels never had any good footage in them. And the enemies looked so poorly placed/bland.

That said, I plan to buy the game due to the way the developers handled the whole voice-over controversy. I'd love to see this game succeed. 3D platformers remain my favorite genre too.

I think once Super Mario Odyssey comes out, however, these same reviewers will praise it as a good game even though it's the same exact genre with similar gameplay. The difference is that Nintendo's Tokyo team are the best level designers in the business.

In other words, Yooka-Laylee is not likely anachronistic. It's probably just average or boring.

 

[Crocodile]

I think a good way to evaluate this critique is to look at a game like Shovel Knight. Shovel Knight harkens back to many games from the NES era but expands on them with more modern design theory and philosophy. No game like Shovel Knight could have been made back in the 80/90s. Many critiques of Yooka-Laylee denote that the game not just brings back the good parts of the N64 era but also the bad parts (the camera being one example). When hitting nostalgia, you want to aim for what you think people remember from that era rather than what they actually experienced.

 

[Rad Shadow]

It's people like these reviewers that make rpgs so ugly nowadays.

Like, give me sprites again dammit!

Why does everything have to be so futuristic and real looking these days.

Dunno. Guess I need to dip my toes in more indies or something.

 

[Piano]

Well you accomplish what you set out to do, so if I was reviewing it I'd be positive about that. I'd then critique the rest of it based on how well it runs etc., plus the fun factor which it probably wouldn't have

So if I set out to make a game that isn't fun and I succeed, it should get good review scores?
If the developers of Mass Effect: Andromeda set out to make an incomplete game with bad animations - and they apparently have succeeded at that - they should get good review scores?

 

[KirbyStamped]

I think one of the major issues is that people play different games for different reasons, so there's some shellshock when some people go back and see what it is they used to like. A lot of the hype for 3D Platformers back in the day was because of the perception that they were the only open world option on consoles around. However, time has passed since then and a lot of advancements in open world gaming have occurred and many don't realize that was why they played those types of games in the first place.

Like, I remember back in the day a LOT of the hype surrounding around Banjo-Kazooie wasn't about its collectathon gameplay or expansive variety of mini-games, but on the size of the world itself. However, nowadays BK's size would be considered pretty quaint, and the core of the game pretty much revolves around attempting small tasks around the world and picking up things laying around the game. There is a community who does understand that about BK and, by proxy, Yooka-Laylee, but I think when a lot of people first heard that ex-Rare devs were working on a spiritual successor to BK, they didn't think "Cool a new game where I pick things up!", they thought "Awesome a new ambitious open world game with a focus on platforming!"

I'm not disparaging YL, for the record. I'm actually excited for it myself but I'm just trying to make sense of where this sudden rash of negativity is coming from

 

[Won]

- Character turning speeds
- Character momentum
- Camera angles
- Use of shadows

There's stuff.

I always remember booting up the original Half-Life years after Half-Life 2 and it was....let's say awkward. It just didn't feel right.

Tech advances and so does game design.

The N64 Rare era probably embodies this more than anyone else for me. As much I loved them back in the days, I would never touch Blast Corps or GoldenEye in this day and age. I rather stick to my nostalgia and memories here.

And among the Rare games the Banjo games weren't even particular enjoyable to me even back in the day. So such sentiments shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Yoshi]

How does it compare to Jak and Daxter? To me, that was the genre evolved. Seamless world, no reset of worldstates (the resetting of "stars" that occurs in most n64 collectathons), and fluid and fastpaced gameplay along with the natural progression of technology (look Double Fine's lets play with Rubin, ND did some pretty clever stuff). Playing it next to the classic Rare titles it feels like the next generation for the genre. It really was a shame that very few AAA devs took on the genre beyond early ps2 years.


Also, the voice acting in this day and age is just really, really annoying instead of charming, and I grew up with it. And in the footage of Yooka Laylee the worlds look empty and flat compared to modern standards. No reason both of these things should happen in this day and age.

Actually, Jak & Daxter was quite clever in its presentation in this regard, but the worlds were still separated. They glued three worlds together each and put a tunnel between those triples instead of a hub. It would have felt like a proper evolution, had Banjo-Tooie not come before and offered a way more complex interactivity between the worlds. Still, both games are significantly weaker than Kazooie, but talking about world cohesion, Tooie has trumped Daxter before it could trump Kazooie.

 

[Raven77]

I agree with the opp completely (not shocking considering my avatar). However, I would say that it is more about the changing landscape in game development, the costs involved, trying to hit a fully broad global audience that has caused genres like this to fade.

As game development costs increased, etc. shooters became more and more popular. Developers knew and know now that people like them and that they sell well, so it is a safer bet than trying out a new 3D Platformer.

Also, something that doesn't get mentioned much is original character design. It isn't easy to create memorable, likable cartoon style characters and a lot of times we love these old 3D Platformers because of the main characters. It is much easier to create "Bronson Hardjaw" a gruff ex military veteran that gets pulled in for one last mission" than to create something like the next Banjo, Mario, Rayman, Donkey Kong, etc. Tons of games have great memorable human characters, but when you create a human character you are starting with the human as a solid base to build upon, creating something from scratch is more difficult.

 

[Peltz]

And among the Rare games the Banjo games weren't even particular enjoyable to me even back in the day. So such sentiments shouldn't be surprising.

I love 3D platformers more than any other genre. But I agree that the Banjo games were a bit overrated.

 

[CrazyArcadia]

It's the same thing that happened to old-school survival horror and JRPGs.

Which is funny coming from Jim, of all people, since he's done episodes on "the industry just up and decided survival horror was unpopular" a few times.

So there were movements against this "archaic" past. Tank controls, fixed camera angles, limited saves, and resource management were no longer carefully crafted design decisions; they were annoyances and flaws. We moved past it in our new era of auto-saving and responsive controls.

Turn-based random battles and linear stories with spiky-haired kids with big eyes fell out of season in favor of real-time combat with more open-worlds. That was "better".

I remember Lost Odyssey got some critical reviews slamming its "outdated" mechanics. I read a few who hated Alien: Isolation's "old-school" approach to horror and saving.

And I've simply accepted that these games aren't bad at all, but they aren't the games made for these critics or players. They want the games to be something they are not, and their complaints are often THE REASON old-school fans love them.

I'd kill for a new Resident Evil in the exact same mold as the originals (RE7 is certainly closer than it's been in decades), and I've been binging on old-school style JRPGs like Radiant Historia, FF3, and Bravely Default lately.

Yooka-laylee isn't for everyone. It's a N64 platformer in an era of Skyrims, GTAs, Uncharteds, Halos, and Dark Souls.

But it's absolutely the type of game I've missed DEARLY for nearly 20 years.

It's probably this... but not only. You've said you're binging Radiant Historia, FF3 and Bravely Default – that's awesome, they're also 3 of my favorite DS/3DS JRPGs. Those go a step further than being like the classics though, they emulate the old-school gameplay but add just enough QOL and modern features to be more like "the way you remember the classics to be" instead of "the way the classics actually were" (Same can be said for Alien: Isolation, as well, which is one of my favorite horror games. You could even extend it to the recent Project Zero entries which were... critically destroyed for being more of the same PS1/2 era horror games yet I'd say if you like those you will also maybe like the new Project Zero games). Quest structures, saving, difficulty... FF3 might be the most old-school of the bunch, but Bravely Default, while kinda feeling like the lost child of Final Fantasy 6 and 9, manages to actually be very innovative and modern with a lot of its features.

And I think this is where YL, from what I've seen and read about it, falls a bit off the mark. I am a huge fan of platform games, I even enjoyed Donkey Kong 64... a lot (!)... but in many ways, you can do collectathons today without them feeling like a chore. Which, according to some reviewers, YL unfortunately does at times. Technical hiccups and - arguably - rather monotone leveldesigns in later stages probably don't help it any further.

This does not mean it is a bad game, it's probably, and that's back to your reasoning, a special niche taste game. So hey, most people who like N64 style platform games will still enjoy the game for what it is while it is lacking enough modernisation to revitalize the genre itself in a big way (unfortunately so).

So basically, I agree, but I also would say the likes of Bravely Default, Radiant Historia, Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7 are far better at emulating the oldschool gameplay while adding just enough modern features to reel in new audiences together with old fans.

 

[hidys]

It's people like these reviewers that make rpgs so ugly nowadays.

Like, give me sprites again dammit!

Why does everything have to be so futuristic and real looking these days.

Dunno. Guess I need to dip my toes in more indies or something.

I wish more people appreciated the poorly reviewed Undertale.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Camjo-Z]

But what is Banjo's modern equivalent?

This is what it all really boils down to for me. For something to be outdated it has to have improved on in the time since. What exactly evolved from Banjo? What is the modern day collectathon? It's certainly not the obstacle course skill-based platforming of Mario, or the combat-focused Ratchet, or the gimmicky controls of Snake Pass. These reviewers talk about how the genre has been done better but they can't point to anything that's properly filled the gap.

 

[Novel Mike]

I've read numerous reviews for my current most wanted title Yooka-Laylee, in particular most really negative ones. What struck me as extremely odd was the seemingly consensual (among negative reviews) standpoint that Yooka-Laylee lacks in terms of evolving past what was established in 1998 (sometimes it's called 1997 but that does not make much sense). E.g we have:



Just to cite a few.

I am really puzzled by this and wonder what exactly it is that should have been adopted from other modern games - I doubt, considering the strength of the cited claims, it's just better camera control. This should be something obvious from considering the N64 era platformers, rather than just Yooka-Laylee I would suppose, but actually, taking Banjo-Kazooie into consideration, I see absolutely nothing outside of camera controls that has ever systematically been done better than in Banjo-Kazooie. In fact, had Banjo-Kazooie released just yesterday (assuming better graphics and analog camera control) I would have wholeheartedly rated the game a 10/10 and never would it have crossed my mind that something in the game is in any way archaic or significantly been outdone by anything else. I would be glad if someone could explain this to me.

100% Agree, I played the toybox and loved it. I loved every trailer and gameplay video I've seen and I've seen the game get constant hate both here and elsewhere.

I honestly just wonder if the game isn't old enough to really be retro for some people. I don't get why MM9/10 and games like them such as Shovel Knight are universally praised and yet this game gets shit on for trying to be just like an N64 platformer. Those games are far from perfect either but they were never told they were out of their time it just seems like a double standard to me.

Of course the technical issues are another story but reviewers are very split on the game and it largely seems to be due to some people just not understanding the game or expecting it to be something it was never going to be. It's an N64 styled collectathon platformer, exactly what myself and everyone else paid so much in the kickstarter to get. There was no way this was going to get the budget to really become the next Mario Galaxy or Ratchet and Clank. It's an indie game after all. I wanted big colorful worlds with fun and charming characters with googly eyes and that seems to be exactly what we've got.

Some of the technical issues have already been addressed as well so I just don't understand the hate being thrown by several outlets at the game. I don't really care about what scores the game is getting but the language being used just doesn't make any sense to me at all. One video review I watched said something along the lines of 'Everyone who played Banjo back in 1998 has moved on' and I did a double take because thats just completely incorrect. If it was true then how the shit did this game get funded so well? Why am I and so many others excited for it still DESPITE the poor reviews?

We wanted this game and you know what most of us are willing to deal with some technical problems in order to play a game like it again. I'm not expecting a game of the year quality kind of experience here, I never was and I think most of us just wanted a fun new game to play thats just like the BK games we used to play and enjoy so much.

 

[wildfire]

It's the same thing that happened to old-school survival horror and JRPGs.

Which is funny coming from Jim, of all people, since he's done episodes on "the industry just up and decided survival horror was unpopular" a few times.

So there were movements against this "archaic" past. Tank controls, fixed camera angles, limited saves, and resource management were no longer carefully crafted design decisions; they were annoyances and flaws. We moved past it in our new era of auto-saving and responsive controls.

Sterling still was a kickstarter backer of this game exactly because he wanted to support a game to prove AAA publishers wrong about outdated games.


But his review indicates he wanted an update and polish in the vein of Shovel Knight and Evil Within instead of a slavish return to form as if the games back then never had any room for improvement.

 

[Shiggy]

Seriously?

Yes.

 

[Allan Holdsworth]

Critics in general are pretty close minded and like a specific type of game experience. It's also the reason why Zelda scored so highly after going open world.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

and I've been binging on old-school style JRPGs like Radiant Historia, FF3, and Bravely Default lately.

Can't speak for FF3 since I haven't played it (and assuming you're playing a newer version, it's literally a remake of an old JRPG), but Bravely Default & Radiant Historia have a number of improvements & innovations that weren't present in old-school style JRPGs.

 

[MadMod]

The view on the game is negative, but I don't see 7/10 as a negative. It looks exactly what it set out to be from the start, no point in criticising a game trying to be retro for being retro. What the 7 score shows me is that it set out to be what it was meant to be, but didn't innovate past that. I believe thats okay.

 

[TheBrainninja]

I think a lot of it comes down to a division of thought: do you view the design and mechanics of older games as "the best solution we had at the time to this problem," or do you believe they're inherently valuable?

A common example might be a limited life system, versus something like a modern checkpoint solution. Limited lives are a mechanic born out of arcades needing a monetization scheme, and just became a commonly accepted design practice. People argue the merits of that system on its own, but it is an outdated concept as we've found other solutions for the "restrict progress by player skill" problem.

It's fine to like "the old ways," but many people have moved on and expect new things to use new wisdom to solve their problems. This is very...vague and generic because 1.) I haven't played Yooka-Laylee so I can't speak specifically, and 2.) I think you asked for it in that way.

Speaking more specifically to the 3D platformer phenomenon, I think there are absolutely ways to modernize elements of them while keeping what was special. I went back a year or so ago to play Banjo Kazooie, and while I love a lot about that game, there were a lot of elements that caused me intense frustration - needless frustration, by my estimation. By contrast, I didn't feel that way about Jak & Daxter (let's not have the Jak 2 fight here), or Mario Galaxy, or any Ratchet game past the first one. All of those, to a degree, gave me the same joy I had when playing Banjo, but they abandoned the Banjo mechanics I hated in favor of less frustrating solutions.

When I want a new "old thing I loved," I'm not looking for something to replicate those mechanics with exacting detail: I want them to evoke the feelings I had playing the original, filtered through a modern lens. The old games are still there as time capsules, I don't need just another one of those.

I dunno, sorry for rambling, but the "why aren't people happy with the old ways" is something I think about a lot outside of games as much as inside them. I truly mean no offense, and I want new 3D platformers as much as you do - I just want really good ones that surprise me!

 

[Garlador]

This is what it all really boils down to for me. For something to be outdated it has to have improved on in the time since. What exactly evolved from Banjo? What is the modern day collectathon? It's certainly not the obstacle course skill-based platforming of Mario, or the combat-focused Ratchet, or the gimmicky controls of Snake Pass. These reviewers talk about how the genre has been done better but they can't point to anything that's properly filled the gap.

Crazy enough, the closest I can think of is... Crackdown? Prince of Persia '08?

I guess Mario games, but they aren't really about collecting stuff anymore.

Yooka-Laylee is not just a game out of time, but one that exists in a world where the very genre it exists as is both dead and despised in many circles.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

This is how I feel about it:

Back on the N64, when this kind of technology was cutting edge and you could move in every direction in a fully 3D environment for the first time, the simple act of movement was extremely fun. Turning your camera to bring something new into view, or climbing something and seeing what was below at a different perspective, was the height of adventure in my youth. This was predicated by the fact that I was exploring a space in a way I had never explored before. This is a feeling that no longer exists.

3D platformers like this perfectly demonstrated what was possible with this new graphical technology and was possibly the most fun and accessible way to experience it. But once we have surpassed that novelty, it's a lot harder to get back in that frame of mind.

When I think about my time with Super Mario 64, I really don't remember many stars. I didn't get excited to get out there and collect anything. I got excited to see the new map. My memories of SM64 are about locations more than mechanics. I don't know if I can feel that way again.

Please note that I'm making no judgment on Yooka-Laylee whatsoever. This is more about the idea of a "dated genre." Sometimes, I think 3D platformers are great technical showcases. They were the best way to show off what the N64 could do. I think they might be too rooted in a frame of mind I don't have anymore.

 

[nkarafo]

I would never touch Blast Corps or GoldenEye in this day and age. I rather stick to my nostalgia and memories here.

I don't know about Blast Corps but Goldeneye plays very well today if you set it up correctly on a recent Pj64 emulator, with the right plugins (GlideN64) and the right control options. You can even set it up in a way so it plays like a dual analog shooter with a modern controller (with true analog in both sticks). I did this and it feels good to play. The campaign is good and the non-linear level design in many areas is very good as well. And the frame rate is smoother than the real N64 if you use "counter factor = 1" in PJ64.

Also, the music.

 

[SlasherJPC]

My guess is that these people never liked the genre but are afraid that if there's a resurgence it will somehow mean less of the games they enjoy will end up being made so they trash talk it at every chance to make sure it doesn't become successful.

Sorry to say but this type of assumption gets under my skin just a tad. I personally grew up loving the genre and still enjoy Banjo and Kazooie, Conker, and other to this day, revisiting some from time to time. My disappointment with Yooka Laylee is its urge to keep all the problem issues some of these games had and just going with it instead of thinking how to maybe enhance the experience. Camera is only one element. Lack of enemy variety hurts it. Huge sparse levels on some worlds other worlds handle it better. Casino level and it's way overdone use of its coins/casino games for pages. Hub world confusion. Etc.

I rated the game a 7 out of 10 because it felt like such a great trip down memory lane but either retains issues these games always had or bring in some new ones. Still a fun time and they brought the genre back into today's market, which is a testament all in itself.

 

[Garlador]

Can't speak for FF3 since I haven't played it (and assuming you're playing a newer version, it's literally a remake of an old JRPG), but Bravely Default & Radiant Historia have a number of improvements & innovations that weren't present in old-school style JRPGs.

My point was the GENRE ITSELF was hated for a time. Reading reviews of FFX begging Square to get rid of turn-based combat and random battles. Whole companies like 2K saying turn-based strategy was dead. Etc.

When Bravely Default released, Square themselves actually admitted they were utterly shocked it succeeded as well as it did and said they would look into doing more turn-based games in the future, but its success literally caught them - the folks that popularized the very genre - off-guard.

 

[Synth]

Sonic games is right, I like many Sonic games, some of which performed badly in critics. However, most of the time I know what people criticise in Sonic. There are things that are just plain wrong, but understandable from a casual look at the game ("autopilot"), other things are absolutely right and it just depends on the weight you put on it (Werehog, for instance). I am not actually puzzled by the negative response. I don't share it, but I at least understand it. Not so for the current case of super-generalised critique on Yooka targeting the whole genre outright.

I'm just gonna jump into this here. I'd argue the reason you sometimes don't understand the reactions to things you like, is because you because you similarly see other things as "right" or "wrong".

The narrowing of focus in 3D Sonic games that occurred since Unleashed is something I would actually consider something the team finally did very right, and allowed the series to play both to the strengths of the character in terms of speed, and also created a very unique brand of platformer that no other IP comes close to providing. The series suddenly stopped being a weaker, mechanically inferior Mario 64, and became a game with its own identity... the best at what it does effectively.

Meanwhile the "Werehog" part that you consider to be "absolutely right" is probably the single aspect within the series to be near universally seen as a negative element by everyone else. It's basically the worst aspects of the Adventure games' side characters, just dressed up as another part of Sonic to disguise it. It was Knack before Knack existed. A rubbish beat-em-up masquerading as a platformer.

So, if we consider that you can look at the "auto-pilot" parts of modern Sonic and deem that something that's "plain wrong", how is it that you can't look at the fact a game is designed almost entirely around being a collectathon, a term used with very little affection these days to describe the ways many games will fill out their worlds with useless fluff, in order to give the impression that the game has significantly more content than it has, by giving the player busywork to do... and realise that's a very large reason many people wouldn't like it. The very concept is something many people would consider "plain wrong" in the many games it still manifests itself in.

 

[andymcc]

I briefly played the Rare N64 games at release and they didn't appeal me to then. Super tedious, ugly art and mechanically just didn't compare to the finess of Mario's moveset.

I played through B-K on the 360 arcade release.... yeeesh.. I think you have to have a certain nostalgia for this kind of game...

 

[Yukinari]

Maybe if they made a tightly designed game it would be worthy.

I cant believe they made worlds that are already giant and gave you the ability to make them EVEN BIGGER but didnt add warp pads? Tooie and DK64 without warp pads would be worse games.

 

[Wozman23]

I think a good way to evaluate this critique is to look at a game like Shovel Knight. Shovel Knight harkens back to many games from the NES era but expands on them with more modern design theory and philosophy. No game like Shovel Knight could have been made back in the 80/90s. Many critiques of Yooka-Laylee denote that the game not just brings back the good parts of the N64 era but also the bad parts (the camera being one example). When hitting nostalgia, you want to aim for what you think people remember from that era rather than what they actually experienced.

I think Shovel Knight is another great example of banking on nostalgia, even if in my case the example is another negative case seeing as how I am one of the few who didn't like Shovel Knight.

I grew up on Mega Man. I had a very love-hate relationship with them. At the time I loved the gameplay and concept of them, but the brutal difficulty and beat-every-boss-again cliche annoyed me even then. Most games have become easier over time, and I'm grateful since I'm no longer a child with a limitless amount of hour to devote to gaming.

For the most part, I quit playing stuff like that because I got burnt out of the genre. I bought Mega Man 9 when it came out and never had the will to finish it. I don't think I even touched MM10. I finally caved on Shovel Knight a month or so ago after another of the countless threads praising it, and I was severely underwhelmed and, while it wasn't near as difficult and did innovate some, I still didn't like a lot of the design philosophy like the checkpoint and lives system and the replaying all the bosses.

I tried the formula again shortly after when the fan made Mega Man 2.5D came out, hoping I'd like the perspective shift, and while I did, it wasn't enough to overcome the other tropes. Even just the reduction back to old control schemes hindered it, as it introduced unnecessary struggles. How did we ever play a game where shoot and jump were both mapped to face buttons?! We've evolved for good reason in many cases.

I wanted to like both it and Shovel Knight, but their stubbornness to stick to old ideas doomed both of them in my eyes. There are people who enjoy that stuff, but sadly it's not what I'm looking for these day.

Similar burn out can even happen in genres and franchises I enjoy. Ratchet & Clank is my favorite franchise of all time. A Crack in Time is arguably one of the best entries, yet I didn't enjoy it as much because after years of yearly entries, I was growing tired of the formula. People often criticize gimmicks, but gimmicks draw me to games, and provide uniqueness and variety. When All 4 One released, which is arguably the worst entry in the franchise, I really enjoyed it, because it was different and provided relief from the same formula. When Into the Nexus returned to classic form, I was reinvigorated. I again loved the PS4 entry.

Sadly, I don't know if my burnout for collectathons or Mega Man-esque games will ever fade.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I don't think we've evolved past the fundamental philosophies of games like these. Execution wise sure, but not at the heart. Honestly what made the BK games and others of its ilk, for me at least, was the joy of exploration and the journey. Feelings like that aren't passing fads, it's a part of human nature. I suppose maybe the error with this game was the same error that Nintendo was making in it's post-OoT Zeldas, missing the forest for the trees. Interestingly enough, I think Breath of the Wild is as much a philosophical successor to the BK ideology as anything today. It's a game where the act of discovery is the driving factor, and the quests and collectibles are simply a means to facilitate and direct that discovery. Don't just make A and B and C and D interesting, make the lines between them interesting as well. Which I guess is just a roundabout way of saying good level design is as important as it has ever been. The open world design I think is also a natural evolution that, as stated in interviews on that game, comes simply because we are no longer technologically constrained to hard-gated subsections and rooms. Make the transition from A to B to C to D as unconstrained and natural as possible. If your game is about exploring, then let the player damn well explore. It's one of the little details from Guild Wars 2 that lit a fire under me more than anything, those jumping puzzles. Where so many games before that put up invisible barriers and obviously hand placed sheer cliffs, this game had so many spots that not just allowed but ENCOURAGED you to go out of your way and take in the world. Not to beat a dead horse, but Zelda does this in two major ways. For one, the aforementioned collectible reward, skinner boxian but still gratifying in the sense that it was worked for. EDIT: And I guess i should mention that BotW's collectibles differ crucially from a lot of others in the collectathon genre in that A. they're gotten in the course of the normal gameplay loop, again driven by exploration, and B. they have a tangible effect of further facilitating gameplay, not existing simply for the sake of existing but giving you better weapons, more health, more stamina, which means more exploring. For two, the view itself, not only for the innate beauty of the world design, but also for the vantage point it provided to see other points of interest to facilitate, you guessed it, more exploring, importantly again in a game that ALLOWS you to explore in such a fashion. People cheese up cliffs or on top of buildings in games like Skyrim or Fallout not because haha we broke the game but because exploration is always the most fundamental driving force behind any of these open world games.

IDK at this point this post is kind of meandering but blah. Also I'm sure Super Mario Odyssey will bring a ton more to this topic when it comes out later this year as others have pointed out.

 

[ScOULaris]

It's a false equivalence by reviewers, because the game's marketing focused so much on nostalgia. YL simply appears to be a mediocre game in general. Yet it wears "90s" on its sleeve so blatanty, the easiest conclusion people come to is that old games are now bad. Though in reality, many classics are still great and YL being mediocre actually changes nothing about that.

It doesn't help that this subgenre is underrepresented nowadays. I.e. if Mighty Number 9 came out before the 2D revival within the indie sector, I bet reviewers would have claimed that 2D platformers are simply outdated, not blaming the actual poor quality of MN9.

This is how I feel about it as well. It's just a mediocre game that pales in comparison to the older games from which it draws most of its inspiration. It feels empty and overly easy with boring, dead-simple platforming in a way that even the older N64 platformers don't when you go back and play them today.

If anything, it was precisely this failure to capture the tighter design and joyful creativity of its classic forebears that gives reviewers a negative impression of the game as a whole. I think they are conflating the game's intentions with its failings. It had good intentions; it just didn't realize them fully.

 

[Yoshi]

I'm just gonna jump into this here. I'd argue the reason you sometimes don't understand the reactions to things you like, is because you because you similarly see other things as "right" or "wrong".

The narrowing of focus in 3D Sonic games that occurred since Unleashed is something I would actually consider something the team finally did very right, and allowed the series to play both to the strengths of the character in terms of speed, and also created a very unique brand of platformer that no other IP comes close to providing. The series suddenly stopped being a weaker, mechanically inferior Mario 64, and became a game with its own identity... the best at what it does effectively.

Meanwhile the "Werehog" part that you consider to be "absolutely right" is probably the single aspect within the series to be near universally seen as a negative element by everyone else. It's basically the worst aspects of the Adventure games' side characters, just dressed up as another part of Sonic to disguise it. It was Knack before Knack existed. A rubbish beat-em-up masquerading as a platformer.

So, if we consider that you can look at the "auto-pilot" parts of modern Sonic and deem that something that's "plain wrong", how is it that you can't look at the fact a game is designed almost entirely around being a collectathon, a term used with very little affection these days to describe the ways many games will fill out their worlds with useless fluff, in order to give the impression that the game has significantly more content than it has, by giving the player busywork to do... and realise that's a very large reason many people wouldn't like it. The very concept is something many people would consider "plain wrong" in the many games it still manifests itself in.

I think you got me wrong. The criticism of the Werehog is right. The auto-pilot claim is just bullshit, the linear Sonic is absolutely not on autopilot, but I can see how very superficial players can still think it is.

EDIT: And just to clarify: Sonic Forces is my current number 3 on my most wanted list, right behind Yooka and Mario. I was delighted to see the return to boost Sonic, because boost Sonic is the best Sonic.

 

[ramparter]

Sorry to say but this type of assumption gets under my skin just a tad. I personally grew up loving the genre and still enjoy Banjo and Kazooie, Conker, and other to this day, revisiting some from time to time. My disappointment with Yooka Laylee is its urge to keep all the problem issues some of these games had and just going with it instead of thinking how to maybe enhance the experience. Camera is only one element. Lack of enemy variety hurts it. Huge sparse levels on some worlds other worlds handle it better. Casino level and it's way overdone use of its coins/casino games for pages. Hub world confusion. Etc.

I rated the game a 7 out of 10 because it felt like such a great trip down memory lane but either retains issues these games always had or bring in some new ones. Still a fun time and they brought the genre back into today's market, which is a testament all in itself.

I'm ok with them not trying to enhance the formula already. Maybe that would be a good start for a YL sequel.

I have some hopes that maybe Nintendo with Super Mario Odyssey will give us partially an enhanced formula of the collectathon genre.

 

[More_Badass]

Why is level-based 3D platformer a genre out of time and not turn-based games, hex-grid wargames, 4Xs, interactive fiction, adventure games, RTS games, and so on?

Havent played this game, but the sentiment I get from these quotes is "this game does some things poorly, so that means the style of game is poor/obsolete/etc." Which seems like a pretty narrow way to look at things

 

[Clear]

People give reviews far too much credibility.

By which I mean if you look at the way games are received by actual players you'll see wildly varying responses to even the most lauded titles. Even if you start weeding out obvious agenda-driven fanboy/hater type positions, its extremely rare to see anything like a consensus. Ever.

My point is simply that if you accept this to be the case for "real" gamers, why would you expect critics to be any different?

More to the point, do you actually want it to be? In simple terms should critics reflect the tastes and values of the audience, or should they stand for something else?

 

[Synth]

I think you got me wrong. The criticism of the Werehog is right. The auto-pilot claim is just bullshit, the linear Sonic is absolutely not on autopilot, but I can see how very superficial players can still think it is.

EDIT: And just to clarify: Sonic Forces is my current number 3 on my most wanted list, right behind Yooka and Mario. I was delighted to see the return to boost Sonic, because boost Sonic is the best Sonic.

Oh shit..
Carry on then, lol.

 

[Harmen]

Actually, Jak & Daxter was quite clever in its presentation in this regard, but the worlds were still separated. They glued three worlds together each and put a tunnel between those triples instead of a hub. It would have felt like a proper evolution, had Banjo-Tooie not come before and offered a way more complex interactivity between the worlds. Still, both games are significantly weaker than Kazooie, but talking about world cohesion, Tooie has trumped Daxter before it could trump Kazooie.

Hmmm, I played Kazooie and Daxter in the same timeframe and can't say I agree. It is true that Daxter did some trickery and that it's locations were seperated but in Kazooie it actually feels like a collection of separated worlds connected by a hub where Daxter, to me, felt like a more coherent world alltogether. That there are (three) different parts in the world instead of one main hub was not detrimental to the gameplay experience, in my opinion.

(I also prefer Tooie to Kazooie as it felt more adventurous to me so there is that)

 

[Sponge]

Honestly, after checking out reviews I would say Playtonic delivered exactly what they promised. I'm speaking as someone that bought a 360 for Banjo and ended up getting burned by Nuts & Bolts. I've waited a long time for a game like this and the biggest issues that have concerned me are performance and camera, not gameplay.

 

[Kyuur]

I think a good way to evaluate this critique is to look at a game like Shovel Knight. Shovel Knight harkens back to many games from the NES era but expands on them with more modern design theory and philosophy. No game like Shovel Knight could have been made back in the 80/90s. Many critiques of Yooka-Laylee denote that the game not just brings back the good parts of the N64 era but also the bad parts (the camera being one example). When hitting nostalgia, you want to aim for what you think people remember from that era rather than what they actually experienced.

Can you explain any similarities Shovel Knight has to NES games other than aesthetic? It has much more in common with SNES classics like Megaman X and I don't really understand what anyone is talking about when they say it implements modern game design beyond that. Its an absolutely fantastic game but it definitely could have been developed during the 90s.

 

[Shadow Hog]

I don't know about Blast Corps but Goldeneye plays very well today if you set it up correctly on a recent Pj64 emulator, with the right plugins (GlideN64) and the right control options. You can even set it up in a way so it plays like a dual analog shooter with a modern controller (with true analog in both sticks). I did this and it feels good to play. The campaign is good and the non-linear level design in many areas is very good as well. And the frame rate is smoother than the real N64 if you use "counter factor = 1" in PJ64.

Also, the music.

Better, the fans actually have modified 1964 to overclock the game to run at a solid 60FPS (barring staring up-close at a lot of explosions, for some reason) and include fully functional keyboard/mouse support.

Goldeneye with a mouse injector is a tad on the easy side, admittedly, but it's a blast to replay the game with good controls like that. Also works for Perfect Dark v1.1, apparently, though I haven't tried it, and going by the readme file, the injector doesn't tweak the target aiming (the thing wot happens when you hit R) for Perfect Dark like it does for Goldeneye due to some apparent changes to the mechanic between games.

 

[PSqueak]

I think a good way to evaluate this critique is to look at a game like Shovel Knight. Shovel Knight harkens back to many games from the NES era but expands on them with more modern design theory and philosophy. No game like Shovel Knight could have been made back in the 80/90s. Many critiques of Yooka-Laylee denote that the game not just brings back the good parts of the N64 era but also the bad parts (the camera being one example). When hitting nostalgia, you want to aim for what you think people remember from that era rather than what they actually experienced.

I love shovel knight, but serious question, what "modern" convention that didn't exist back in the nes games was in Shovel Knight?

Because other than the concept of "unlimited lives, death is punished by loss of money instead", i can't think of anything else the game did that wasn't done in other nes games.

 

[MysteryM]

Game expectations have moved on, compare YL to something like Mario Galaxy, Mario started in Mario 64 but the evolution has moved on. I think Rare knew this the introduction of nuts and bolts.

As charming as these games are, I think people just want more.