Support NeoGAF

[Mattenth]

Why does everybody keep assuming YL will be a bad game just because the critics say so? Play the game for yourselves when it comes out and form your own opinions. Don't just jump on the hate bandwagon and take others' opinions as facts.

I'm right there with you... These guys set out to make a spiritual successor to Banjo-Kazooie. And reading the reviews, it looks like Kickstarter backers are going to be happy.

The scores are average, but no one was expecting Battlefield 1 or Uncharted 4 levels of gameplay depth and narrative. We knew what we wanted.

 

[Yoshi]

(...) Uncharted 4 levels of gameplay depth (...)

Indeed, I would be infuriated...

I've been thinking about this, and I think part of the problem with collectathon platformers is that there's no real sense of player progression outside of the collectibles themselves. When I say progression, I mean specifically skill progression and mastery of the basic mechanics of the game and that's because there's nothing to really get better at in these games. You start them just running around, collecting shit and doing random tasks that are brought up and then forgotten about never to be seen about and you end them... just running around, collecting shit and doing more random tasks that are brought up once and then abandoned. That being the case, when you get to the end of the game, you're kind of just left with a lack of satisfaction because despite having made a lot of progress and accomplished what the game asked of you, you haven't actually really gotten better at anything or have any greater mastery of any of the controls or mechanics, because the game never really requires that, you know?

Like, in racing games, you get better at maintaining your speed and avoiding wiping out and shit. In FPS/third-person shooters, you get better at killing shit without getting killed yourself or even taking damage. In stealth games, you get better at avoiding being spotted even in increasingly more difficult situations. In non-colletathon 3D platformers, you get better at jumping from platform-to-platform in 3D environments without falling off or running into obstacles.

But in collectathon 3D platformers, what are you really getting better at exactly? What's that different at the end of the game, from the start? Because the focus isn't even on platforming and there barely is any (like, Banjo Kazooie has no real platforming of any particular note until Click Clock Woods, the last world in the game, while it introduces flight, a mechanic to entirely avoid it in Treasure Trove Cove, the second world), there just isn't much of a feeling that you've truly actually accomplished anything at the end since what core gameplay there is is pretty static (ignoring the constantly changing minigames which aren't meaningful because they're just there and gone, not giving players time to get attached or care about any particular one or have reason to get better at them) and the difficulty curve basically non-existent, which leaves the whole experience unsatisfying because "skill" is basically a non-factor. Either you get the basic gist or you don't. And that being the case and people naturally wanting a feeling of actually getting better at something, regardless of what that something is (whether it be third person shooter mechanics in the Ratchet and Clank games, focus on actual 3D platforming in the 3D Marios, or whatever), which the genre couldn't give them, is part of why it just died out. Maybe that's just me? But thinking about it, it's what comes to mind.

Like, the only thing to really get better at, is just doing the levels faster and faster and basically taking up speedrunning. But since these games themselves didn't particularly encourage that or give any incentive to play through the games multiple times, that wasn't enough and either they found different hooks or just kinda vanished. I dunno if I'm actually on to something or not with that, but thinking about it, it's what kinda makes sense to me.

Sorry, but what? There is a very clear progression in difficulty, maybe except for Gobi's Valley, which is easier than Freezeezy Peak and Bubblegloop Swamp. The platforming gets more difficult, the environments get more difficult, the tasks get more complicated and so on. It takes me less than five minutes to 100% Mumbo's Mountain, but around 40 minutes to do the same for Click Clock Wood and that's not just because there is more empty space in between (which would still be true in a sense, but only marginally so). Play Clanker's Cavern, the first water level, and Rusty Bucket Bay, the second water level, right after another and tell me there is not a clear progression in difficulty here. The game is well-designed in a way that the feeling of reasonably challenging, yet not overwhelmingly challenging design being in front of you is basically a constant, if you go through the game in order, precisely because the game is perfectly balanced around the skill progression.

Regarding your Mario Galaxy 2 remark, before I say anything about that, let me please ask: Is this serious or satire? Sorry, if it is serious and you feel attacked, it's not my intention, but I really, really are not sure about this.

Also, someone asked for auto save in Banjo-Kazooie: Note that the game saves after every single note, jiggy or Jinjo you collect. The game is the autosaviest of all autosave games.

 

[jimboton]

Uncharted 4 levels of gameplay depth

This has to be a joke...

 

[petran79]

Why does everybody keep assuming YL will be a bad game just because the critics say so? Play the game for yourselves when it comes out and form your own opinions. Don't just jump on the hate bandwagon and take others' opinions as facts.

B being better than A does not mean A is bad

 

[daTRUballin]

B being better than A does not mean A is bad

True. Sorry if I overreacted to your post a little bit.

 

[Poimandres]

I feel you OP. Not for this type of game in particular, but for other "outdated" genre's.

I would give my left nut for a new C&C game in the vein of the old games. I've been playing Red Alert 2 lately and damn it's fun. But, if a game with very much the same sensibilities released today I'm sure the "outdated" comments would come up.

But, you know, at the end of the day you just have to realise not everything is for everyone. There's nothing wrong with liking things that aren't in vogue. Likewise, there are plenty of highly rated titles I just don't care for. It's fine to have genres you are particularly passionate about and other's you dont enjoy.

The other thing to note is that just because you want a game to be good and it ticks the boxes on paper... Doesn't mean it's necessarily a great game. Just look at Mighty No 9. Always reserve final judgement until you've actually played a game.

The next game I can see getting docked points for being antiquated is Wonderboy Dragons Trap, but god damn I am super psyched for that one!

 

[Clessidor]

I would give my left nut for a new C&C game in the vein of the old games. I've been playing Red Alert 2 lately and damn it's fun. But, if a game with very much the same sensibilities released today I'm sure the "outdated" comments would come up.

Not sure about that. The big advantage of C&C is that it's single player campaign is known for it's live action briefing/story scenes. Think with the right setting and actors it would really appeal to modern critics.
The only problem I see is that doing RTS core gameplay for consoles is always quite a challenge. People might call it "outdated" just because gamepads aren't truelly designed with the genre in mind.

EDIT:

What also comes in mind to this discussion is Innuendo's death of the adventure yutube series in which he tries to explain how the entire core concept of the genre is "outdated" for modern game design. And even though he has fair points, he is so wrong. Old adventure titles had "outdated" game design choices. But that doesn't mean it's dead or it doesn't fit into modern game landscape.

 

[Spaghetti]

Judging by the reviews.... Maybe it just didn't do it well. It is a crowd funded games and what this tells me is that to go down that route even if you meet your funding goals it just isn't enough to make a quality game if you're too ambitious, in this case a 3D platformer instead of 2D. Yooka-laylee is a fine title I'm sure but needed more time and support that only a publisher can give[...]

But, uh, YL has a publisher. Team 17.

[...]if anything this makes me wary of Shenmue 3. Game has sky high expectations but how do they expect to meet them with only a tenth of the budget of the original game. I mean if it was 50 million I would be pretty confident since I imagine the original Shenmue wasn't managed very well.

I debated if I should even reply to this, but impulse got the better of me, so...

Okay, Shenmue cost $47 million to make for a lot of reasons. (Some of the sources eluded me, but I'm completely certain they've been said in the past).

• It effectively covered the budget of both games, marketing, and the Saturn prototype.
  
• It included the development of custom software tools that were allowing then-groundbreaking things to be done in-engine (and therefore expensive and prone to trial and error to create).
  
• It also included the extensive use of very expensive (due to the infancy of the technology) motion capture systems.
  
• Most recently Yu Suzuki revealed Shenmue's engine was to be used throughout the whole of SEGA, and likened it to developing a UE4/Unity as a modern comparison.
  
• He also revealed that in trying to move games close to movies, he initially hired a film director who wasted money on physical sets and costumes for the motion capture (before firing him).
  
• He has also said in recent years that there were just simply too many people working on Shenmue.

These money-sink problems no longer exist in the environment Shenmue III is being developed in. Creating a game like Shenmue is cheaper than it has ever been right now both technically and in terms of understanding what is needed to make a cinematic game, and is largely why the game is being made at all. That's why arguments about III not matching the budget of the originals don't really hold up under scrutiny.

Making Shenmue III is obviously still going to be challenging, and we'll have to see how things pan out in the end; but it isn't an immediate write-off because it doesn't have X million in budget.

 

[Shadow_FFVI]

That's such a different thing tho

Is it? We know it will have turn base elements combined with action gameplay, the same story beats, the same humor (they have said the cross dressing scene is there). We don't know how much they will improve the dialogue.

It's my favorite game of all time, but I do feel uneasy about how will reviewers approach an apportunity to review FF VII. Even if Square does a great job with the remake I don't see it having above a 90 in metacritic, as I don't see it comforming to what games have become.

It will have elements that harken back to an era of rpgs that some of us have fond memories of, but many do not.

 

[Kart94]

Outdated is just another way to say. "I don't like old school things" Most of these old school complaints never work for me. Spyro, Mario 64, and Jak annd Daxter are some of my favorite games and now they are apperently *Outdated*, but apperently the latest Ubisoft open world collect-a-thons get a pass. and that is why i usually discard what reviews have to say.

I'll be purchasing this game when it comes out and get another reminder of why i never take Jim Sterling seriously at all.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I think a lot of people here didn't grow up in the era of the collectathon heyday, so they don't have the context of how valuable games like Super Mario 64 or Banjo-Kazooie were for the genre, as there was a deeply disproportionate ratio of bad-to-awful games compared to the classics, and very little in between those extremes. And who could blame them when a genre's contemporaries include the likes of Bubsy 3D and Chameleon Twist.

I can't speak for the reviewers, but I was definitely around during that period and i've never felt that Banjo and the other collect-a-thon games during that period were anywhere near Mario 64's quality. There was a huge gap between them in my eyes. On some level I think that's why M64 is still one of the most popular speedrun games. Not just because of the glitches, but the general flexibility of the platforming mechanics in comparison to other games of the era is second to none. Even though there's obvious collecting like red coins and yellow coins, at its core it's still a very solid platformer.

When that casino video was released for YL, I remember some groaning and saying that it didn't look great. But that to me was just standard old RARE 3D platformer levels. It was a giant space with basic platforming. And I think back then it was okay. But now when people see that same style they're like "Eh". Especially coming off of games like Mario Galaxy and 3D Land/World. Games that also have collecting but don't hesitate to kick you in your teeth with challenging platforming. One style makes you feel like you've got to really earn those collectibles while one some level the other feels like a chore because of how basic the platforming is.

 

[njr]

So far the negative reviews I've read did not do a good job of explaining how the genre can evolve. The games released today are not a true successor to the core gameplay that the backers are looking for, so I don't think that's the answer (Uncharted, Assassins Creed, games where platforming is semi automatic). I think if they addressed the complaints, it still won't satisfy the "problem" in hand. Ex: camera, framerates, difficulty, note collecting (well that's the point isn't it?). What's left to make the genre "evolved"? Physics?

 

[Garlador]

So far the negative reviews I've read did not do a good job of explaining how the genre can evolve. The games released today are not a true successor to the core gameplay that the backers are looking for, so I don't think that's the answer (Uncharted, Assassins Creed, games where platforming is semi automatic). I think if they addressed the complaints, it still won't satisfy the "problem" in hand. Ex: camera, framerates, difficulty, note collecting (well that's the point isn't it?). What's left to make the genre "evolved"? Physics?

It's like turn-based battles. The concept is as old as chess itself. Your opponent takes a turn, you take a turn. You can iterate, you can change it up. The "ATB" was the last major revision to the turn-based formula, and that was, what, 25 years ago?

It's a reliable formula that reached sort of an apex of progression. Some people will simply NEVER like turn-based battles, or they "outgrew" it.

Platformers are the same way. They're simple in concept. Again, collectathons are just glorified game versions of an easter egg hunt with gymnastics involved. Uncharted doesn't try to be this; even Mario isn't really about collecting stuff anymore.

It's a genre that's sort of at a progression-end, and if you don't like what came before, I don't know why you'd like it now. Granted, maybe some amazing platformer will come along and prove me wrong and give us the evolution these critics are looking for, but it's been, what, two decades now? If it hasn't come by now, I don't think it's happening without some major, massive game hardware changes that transforms how we even play games.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The intent of the devs doesn't really come into it.

This is the main reason. If I set out to make a car out of inflatable balloons, and I do that successfully, that really doesn't (and shouldn't) factor into reviews of my car at all.

Most people don't play these kinds of games. These reviews are negative in the sense that these games are old and were likely left behind because most people don't want to play them. If there were really a massive crowd looking for these, I find it incredibly difficult to believe Nintendo at least wouldn't have made a game for that crowd.

Intent of developer is meaningless. If you read reviews, you're doing it to see if you should buy something. A relevant piece of information is whether a game is outdated, no different than asking whether a new clothing line is outdated. Some people are into bell-bottoms or leg warmers, and that's cool! But it's definitely something that would come up as a negative in a review.

 

[etrain911]

I've been thinking about this, and I think part of the problem with collectathon platformers is that there's no real sense of player progression outside of the collectibles themselves. When I say progression, I mean specifically skill progression and mastery of the basic mechanics of the game and that's because there's nothing to really get better at in these games. You start them just running around, collecting shit and doing random tasks that are brought up and then forgotten about never to be seen about and you end them... just running around, collecting shit and doing more random tasks that are brought up once and then abandoned. That being the case, when you get to the end of the game, you're kind of just left with a lack of satisfaction because despite having made a lot of progress and accomplished what the game asked of you, you haven't actually really gotten better at anything or have any greater mastery of any of the controls or mechanics, because the game never really requires that, you know?

Like, in racing games, you get better at maintaining your speed and avoiding wiping out and shit. In FPS/third-person shooters, you get better at killing shit without getting killed yourself or even taking damage. In stealth games, you get better at avoiding being spotted even in increasingly more difficult situations. In non-colletathon 3D platformers, you get better at jumping from platform-to-platform in 3D environments without falling off or running into obstacles.

But in collectathon 3D platformers, what are you really getting better at exactly? What's that different at the end of the game, from the start? Because the focus isn't even on platforming and there barely is any (like, Banjo Kazooie has no real platforming of any particular note until Click Clock Woods, the last world in the game, while it introduces flight, a mechanic to entirely avoid it in Treasure Trove Cove, the second world), there just isn't much of a feeling that you've truly actually accomplished anything at the end since what core gameplay there is is pretty static (ignoring the constantly changing minigames which aren't meaningful because they're just there and gone, not giving players time to get attached or care about any particular one or have reason to get better at them) and the difficulty curve basically non-existent, which leaves the whole experience unsatisfying because "skill" is basically a non-factor. Either you get the basic gist or you don't. And that being the case and people naturally wanting a feeling of actually getting better at something, regardless of what that something is (whether it be third person shooter mechanics in the Ratchet and Clank games, focus on actual 3D platforming in the 3D Marios, or whatever), which the genre couldn't give them, is part of why it just died out. Maybe that's just me? But thinking about it, it's what comes to mind.

I don't think this is even true of Yooka-Laylee as they have a currency from which you can increase your move pool which gives you new skills to work and play along with. The transformations and minigame segments of the original BK and BT also led to re-purposing your skills in order to succeed at the games with exceptions like the Click-Clack Woods race which was objectively terrible. In YK, they do have an arcade with multiplayer capabilities and leader-boards which I think also contribute to the gaining of an attachment to the minigames. At least from a design perspective. Why did people play arcade games like Pacman or Arkanoid if not for the high score?

 

[Cube]

A lot of the sentiment here appears to be "People are criticizing that it feels really antiquated but that is what the devs set out to do.",

It isn't the job of the media to review what your intentions where in fundraising and development. Their job is to evaluate games based on their fun factor and stability.

Eh.

 

[jimboton]

Smfh at every single post putting Tooie in the same basket than DK64. That game is not as good/can be pretty tedious not only due to the coloured bananas but also because the golden ones were often hidden besides repetitive minigames and very simple locks, the level design was simply not as good notably due to the lack of distinct points of interest(that's what Yooka Laylee looks like). Tooie is far from that, it actually has much less collectables: there's notably less notes and you don't need to get them all in one go, something that could actually be quite tedious in some of Kazooie's later levels.

I can understand preferring its predecessor over it but saying it's due to a lack of substance is simply wrong, if anything it has too much substance. Tooie is a game where the levels are as complex as Kazooie's later levels but right from the start. However they aren't even in the least bit empty, you don't feel like you wander aimlessly. The overwhelming part is that getting a single Jiggy is often behind a very elaborate task, sometimes involving interactions between different levels. It may not have as faster rewards as the first one, but it's still a blast for people preferring the adventuring aspect of the series. It's in no way related to any kind of bloating in games because even if you think it's too big for its own good, at least it offered actually meaningful content unlike the blatant, repetitive padding many games after it had.

You're basically saying that making deeply interactive worlds in a videogame was frowned upon from 6th gen onwards: this is wrong. Many people are waiting for a Mario that's like 64 and Sunshine(a game that was hurt for some of its repetitive or overly simple content, something Tooie doesn't have at all btw). 3D platformers simply stopped being trendy as there wasn't much examples for them to follow; Sunshine wasn't close to being as genre defining as Mario 64, Rare stopped making them once they were sold to Microsoft, the rest were either not in the same league or opted to follow trends from entirely different genres that were trending at the time. 7th gen onwards they simply weren't popular anymore aside from Mario that went in a different structure. Implying that Tooie is an example of bad design that represents needless collection in games is simply asinine. If anything, it's pretty much the dream that a lot of gamers currently have: huge, open worlds that are actually filled with meaningful content. 3D Mario may have been about linear platformers for the last decade or so but I'll be happy if Odyssey offers engaging levels and interactions that are even remotely close to Tooie's.

I agree with everything here. Tooie was as much (if not more) an adventure game than a platform game. And all the collecting was the excuse to get the player exploring and solving puzzles and challenges, not the point of the game. This is true to an extent of all the best collectathons including BK, BT and Mario 64.

 

[sn00zer]

I think the only modern platform to look at that is cut from the same cloth is Ratchet and Clank. Even that is a stretch, but I think it's pretty indicative of the QoL, art, and story standards of the adventure platforming genre.

Jak and Daxter series is older but also in that sort of realm.

 

[jrush64]

So where does Mario fit in all this? Mario is a platformer yet it doesn't feel outdated at all.

 

[Pizza]

So for those of you who have played it, if I thought Banjo and DK 64 were pretty sick, is this worth picking up on it's own merits? If it's more of a retread I'd totally still go finish those games instead

 

[sn00zer]

So where does Mario fit in all this? Mario is a platformer yet it doesn't feel outdated at all.

Mario is not an adventure platform or hasn't been since sunshine. Adventure platforming has pretty much only stayed afloat with Ratchet and Clank the last decade.

EDIT: There are some current and upcoming indie games in the genre but no large console releases.

 

[kubev]

Yooka-Laylee never really appealed to me, and I can't say that I completely understand the draw that some people have to it, but I was thinking about this while watching someone else play Sunset Overdrive. I don't really like collect-a-thons, per se, but I love collecting stuff in Sunset Overdrive, because there's so much variety in terms of how you have to collect things if you don't want to interrupt your flow.

For example, if you're grinding on a power line, then you can collect camera lenses by hitting or shooting them as you pass cameras, collect sneakers by grinding underneath the power line and collect toilet paper by jumping off of the power line and swinging on a pole underneath. If you see a neon sign, then you can wall-run on the respective surface in order to collect it seamlessly. It's so varied, yet still allows for some messy execution at the expense of your flow being interrupted. If you execute it well, however, then the collecting becomes more about observation and technique than it is about the actual tedium of collecting everything.

Sunset Overdrive certainly has its flaws, but I can't think of too many other games in which the traversal is so good that it makes collecting stuff so interesting and renders fast travel systems so unappealing.

 

[Lothar]

A lot of the sentiment here appears to be "People are criticizing that it feels really antiquated but that is what the devs set out to do.",

It isn't the job of the media to review what your intentions where in fundraising and development. Their job is to evaluate games based on their fun factor and stability.

Eh.

Fun factor is 100% subjective. Reviewers should look at who the designer is making the games for and whether or not those people would enjoy it. Any reviewer who gives a game a low score just because they're not into that type of game, especially if it's to the point where they would give something at the top of it's class like Banjo Kazooie a low score, should be given no credibility. They shouldn't be taken seriously. But unfortunately they are.

 

[Yoshi]

So for those of you who have played it, if I thought Banjo and DK 64 were pretty sick, is this worth picking up on it's own merits? If it's more of a retread I'd totally still go finish those games instead

If you like DK64, then definitely get this game. I am only a few hours in, but it certainly is much better than DK64. Also, I think it is unique enough to not feel like a retread of B-K, B-T or DK64. So far it feels to me like a Kazooie on the scale of a DK64.

This is the main reason. If I set out to make a car out of inflatable balloons, and I do that successfully, that really doesn't (and shouldn't) factor into reviews of my car at all.

Most people don't play these kinds of games. These reviews are negative in the sense that these games are old and were likely left behind because most people don't want to play them. If there were really a massive crowd looking for these, I find it incredibly difficult to believe Nintendo at least wouldn't have made a game for that crowd.

Intent of developer is meaningless. If you read reviews, you're doing it to see if you should buy something. A relevant piece of information is whether a game is outdated, no different than asking whether a new clothing line is outdated. Some people are into bell-bottoms or leg warmers, and that's cool! But it's definitely something that would come up as a negative in a review.

If I were interested in a leg warmer and read your review where you complain that leg warmers are a thing of the past I would be irritated, because when Iook for a leg warmer - and why else would I read your review - I have already made up my mind whether I am interested in a leg warmer in principle. Moreover two further notes:
1. How would one know if there are a lot of people interested in such games? The genre just stopped being made after Tooie, Jak & Daxter, Vexx and Super Mario Sunshine, of which only one game was not a success. It has always been a really weird thing that no one even wanted to try this again.
2. Reviews should not be a genre popularity contest. Even genres that are not among the most popular ones should be considered within their bounds; reviews are not meant to enforce current genre trends I think.

Mario is not an adventure platform or hasn't been since sunshine. Adventure platforming has pretty much only stayed afloat with Ratchet and Clank the last decade.

Ratchet & Clank is a third person shooter with some platforming elements, it is in no way properly comparable to Banjo or similar collectathons.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Reviewers should look at who they designer is making the games for and whether or not those people would enjoy it.

I disagree completely because this is based on a subjective statement from the developers. "Oh well our game was designed for people that like bad dialogue and glitches, so you should review it for those people." (not saying this is YL, just in general).

Developer intent is meaningless; reviews are for readers in general, and shouldn't have something extra tacked on to boost scores based on how a dev could spin their intent.

edit:

If I were interested in a leg warmer and read your review where you complain that leg warmers are a thing of the past I would be irritated, because when Iook for a leg warmer - and why else would I read your review - I have already made up my mind whether I am interested in a leg warmer in principle. Moreover two further notes:
1. How would one know if there are a lot of people interested in such games? The genre just stopped being made after Tooie, Jak & Daxter, Vexx and Super Mario Sunshine, of which only one game was not a success. It has always been a really weird thing that no one even wanted to try this again.
2. Reviews should not be a genre popularity contest. Even genres that are not among the most popular ones should be considered within their bounds; reviews are not meant to enforce current genre trends I think.

But you're not on a specific site for leg warmers, where that expectation (the reader wants a leg warmer) is valid. A lot of people just read reviews in general to see if they wanna buy something; I do it a lot with games I've never heard of that sometimes get mentioned on GAF. Reviews in general aren't usually written for people that are probably already going to buy the product (or are leaning in that direction); they're basic assessments (subjective obviously) of whether the game would appeal to the average reader.

As for (1) I definitely don't wanna go for the "business is always right" schtick, but with a company like Nintendo still kicking, I have to think they'd make a game like this that did great sales for them in the past if they had any market research saying it would do well today. That's entirely my thought though, so it's not a fact. Maybe the industry is dying for games like this.

For (2) not entirely what I meant; I don't think reviewers should put their fingers on the scale or anything, but they do write for the general audience. A genre like an FPS is pretty popular (which we do have evidence for) and so that genre isn't a knock against a game. It's likely that the average reader would probably like an FPS (and can of course mentally note it as a negative if they don't, just like you can mentally note this genre as a plus). Based on the lack of games in recent memory, it's not an unreasonable to think the average reader isn't into collectathons.

 

[Purkake4]

It's like all the arena shooters that still keep popping up. The online first person shooter has changed radically, there is almost no market for arena shooters anymore.

 

[sn00zer]

Ratchet & Clank is a third person shooter with some platforming elements, it is in no way properly comparable to Banjo or similar collectathons.

.....no. Movement and platforming is a huge part of the series. Also there are a ton of collectables, minigames, unlockable movement options, puzzles, open platforming areas, side mission characters peppered throughout levels.

Honestly outside of the way you engage enemies they are incredibly similar to collectathon games. I have no idea why you would call them "in no way comparable"

 

[Lothar]

I disagree completely because this is based on a subjective statement from the developers. "Oh well our game was designed for people that like bad dialogue and glitches, so you should review it for those people." (not saying this is YL, just in general).

Developer intent is meaningless; reviews are for readers in general, and shouldn't have something extra tacked on to boost scores based on how a dev could spin their intent.

If there were actually a large group of people that liked bad dialogue and glitches and it seems like the game was purposely made that way, then it's something that should be taken into account, isn't it?

 

[SlasherJPC]

For an example on another thing YL does that feels stuck in the past. The final boss. Yep... It's another one of

Spoiler

those really long, multiple phase, die and start all the way over from the beginning battles.

Some games still do this today. But for a game meant for a broad range of ages, it's extremely tougher the anything that comes before and you have to literally experiment to figure out how to avoid or dodge the moves till the end and hoping you survive long enough to learn the next tactic and not die on random luck until figuring it out. I've always disliked this kind of thing. As it's excruciatingly unfair. Yeah Bloodborne or Dark souls seem to love this element but those games are hard anyways and seems par for the course. It feels at odds here, as I've always felt with some platforming games and their final bosses.

 

[Garlador]

This is the main reason. If I set out to make a car out of inflatable balloons, and I do that successfully, that really doesn't (and shouldn't) factor into reviews of my car at all.

If you were making a modern car, sure... but if you were, say, building an homage to an old, classic vehicle that's for a particular audience...

Some folks recreated the original Baker Torpedo to try and set the land record the car didn't quite originally manage to break in 1920, as close to the original specs as possible. That's damn cool, and there's people who are totally into that.

Or, as another example, you COULD make a modern, gritty, super-serious Batman film that wins Oscars and changes the landscape of the comic book movie industry... OR, you could go back to the 1960s, say "screw it" and make a campy, old, outdated film just for the fun of it.

If someone wants their dark and gritty modern Batman, does that invalidate the old and cheesy one full of puns and $5 costumes? If someone thinks comic books have evolved past this almost mocking approach to heroism, does that invalidate those that revel in it and wish to see more of it come back? Just because the market largely enjoys a newer version of this famous character doesn't invalid the ridiculously dated approach the '60s brought to Caped Crusader. Some people HATE the West material because of just how silly and stupid it is, when Batman to them is The Dark Knight, dammit, but it'd be silly to pan the original material, or a new installment that pays tribute to it (up to and including painted mustaches and intentional flaws), as inherently "bad" because it's "dated", and that was the maker's intent.

So where does Mario fit in all this? Mario is a platformer yet it doesn't feel outdated at all.

Mario hasn't really been a collectathon adventure game since Sunshine. I guess complaints about finding all those blue coins warded even Nintendo away from that approach.

A lot of the sentiment here appears to be "People are criticizing that it feels really antiquated but that is what the devs set out to do.",

It isn't the job of the media to review what your intentions where in fundraising and development. Their job is to evaluate games based on their fun factor and stability.

Eh.

But that doesn't mean a public or a critic can't misread a piece of work or approach a game the wrong way. Watching a journalist fumble his way through the new DOOM was painful to watch because they clearly didn't know what they were doing and thus weren't having a good time. Seeing someone get easily frustrated with Dark Souls and quit early because the game is "unfair" and "doesn't make sense" is failing to understand the game is not meant to be straightforward or easily grasped. I personally hate sports games, so it wouldn't make sense for me to review the newest MADDEN release since I simply wouldn't have fun with it; it's not for me. And goodness knows it took me forever to "get" Final Fantasy XII after hating it for nearly 100 hours; now I look forward to the HD re-release without the baggage I brought with me the first time around.

 

[Synth]

Some folks recreated the original Baker Torpedo to try and set the land record the car didn't quite originally manage to break in 1920, as close to the original specs as possible. That's damn cool, and there's people who are totally into that.

And there will be enthusiast reviewers totally into that, who would likely give it a great score. That doesn't mean everyone else should review it, and score it the same as the latest Ferrari supercar. If it's only designed to appeal to a small subset of people. then it'll likely only review well with a small subset of reviewers.. and that's fine, because those that are looking for that specific niche product will either know which reviews will inform them based on what they know they want.. or they don't even need the review at all in the first place.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

This game isn't out yet so most ppl in this topic are projecting based on the opinions of others.

I'll revisit this after the 11th when most people can actually play the game.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

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.

Is that analogy really applicable here, though? The complaints Jim Sterling had aren't really to do with it just being the same as the original few examples in the genre, it's to do with it even including the faults of the originals despite those being dealt with by other games.

 

[sn00zer]

If you were making a modern car, sure... but if you were, say, building an homage to an old, classic vehicle that's for a particular audience...


But that doesn't mean a public or a critic can't misread a piece of work or approach a game the wrong way. Watching a journalist fumble his way through the new DOOM was painful to watch because they clearly didn't know what they were doing and thus weren't having a good time. Seeing someone get easily frustrated with Dark Souls and quit early because the game is "unfair" and "doesn't make sense" is failing to understand the game is not meant to be straightforward or easily grasped. I personally hate sports games, so it wouldn't make sense for me to review the newest MADDEN release since I simply wouldn't have fun with it; it's not for me. And goodness knows it took me forever to "get" Final Fantasy XII after hating it for nearly 100 hours; now I look forward to the HD re-release without the baggage I brought with me the first time around.

I think though this argument is a bit flawed since Shovel Knight, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze had the "feel" of being an old game, but was able to subtly include modern day QoL that generally goes unnoticed by people who played them. It makes the audience feel "This is just like it was when I was a kid!", when its really not.

The improvements are subtle and essentially allow devs to make a game that glosses over the frustrations with older games you don't remember. Yooka Laylee apparently did not do this based on what I'm reading in the thread so the flaws of the genre are more apparent 15 years later.

 

[TheMink]

^I do agree that perhaps there is certainly a level of polish that could have been applied to this game to put it in the same class as those other titles. But a full 3D game is hard to make for a small team and hopefully if they get lucky enough to make YLTooie it will achieve those things. Heres hoping.

Disclaimer: I backed this game and am satisfied with the the criticism consensus and I am looking forward to playing it. I also believe I'll enjoy it.

I was expecting slightly higher scores maybe 70 on metacritic but still 60~ doesn't surprise me. I think that to the point of the OP the reviewers that think non-backer consumers will dislike the dated feel is justified. I also think that a N64 era platformer is what I backed and is the reason I'm not disappointed it wasn't a Shovel Knight tier success. Hence why a reviewer doesn't really need to establish what a consumer already knows they are looking for because even as you and others pointed out some people read those "dated" criticisms and actually take them as compliments. So I feel like the target audiance of YL remains intact even though it's been relegated to niche status. I'm fairly certain it was always niche status right from the get go.

I don't necessarily agree with the word choice of some more of the harsh reviewes but I think it is ultimately understandable. Maybe a few people who actually would enjoy this game were turned away because of those harsh reviews so I can see how it might be frustrating if you really want it to suceeed sales wise.

 

[Sanctuary]

I'm honestly surprised by the damning reviews along the lines of, "This sucks, it's just like those old 3D platformers and it's terrible."

Wasn't that the whole point? Wasn't that why people funded it in the first place?

A lot of these same reviewers will also probably hail the next "retro" 8-bit indie Zelda, Metroid or Megaman clone as the new best thing too like they are prone to do.

 

[SlasherJPC]

I think though this argument is a bit flawed since Shovel Knight, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze had the "feel" of being an old game, but was able to subtly include modern day QoL that generally goes unnoticed by people who played them. It makes the audience feel "This is just like it was when I was a kid!", when its really not.

The improvements are subtle and essentially allow devs to make a game that glosses over the frustrations with older games you don't remember. Yooka Laylee apparently did not do this based on what I'm reading in the thread so the flaws of the genre are more apparent 15 years later.

This all the way, coming from someone that reviewed it, enjoyed it, but felt it wasn't quite what it should be. This is spot on.

 

[Burbeting]

When you want to revive a genre/make a homage of it, you generally want to bring back the best parts of said genre, while also making some drastic QoL improvements/even complete overhauls to the aspects that didn't work/didn't age well.

 

[Garlador]

I think though this argument is a bit flawed since Shovel Knight, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze had the "feel" of being an old game, but was able to subtly include modern day QoL that generally goes unnoticed by people who played them. It makes the audience feel "This is just like it was when I was a kid!", when its really not.

The improvements are subtle and essentially allow devs to make a game that glosses over the frustrations with older games you don't remember. Yooka Laylee apparently did not do this based on what I'm reading in the thread so the flaws of the genre are more apparent 15 years later.

True, but that's the difference I'd say. Shovel Knight only LOOKS old, but it plays like a modern game. It's got all modern game features you'd expect. It is not, in fact, a true throw-back to 8-bit gaming, but rather a TRIBUTE to that era. Donkey Kong Returns and Tropical Freeze are fully modern games that take the template of the originals and bring it to the modern era, but they're not recreations of the original template.

I'd actually argue that Mega Man 9 and 10 are true throwbacks.

And what kind of score does Mega Man 10 have?
78 on Metacritic,
6.6 user score

It's brilliant at recapturing the spirit and magic of the NES games, almost exactly, and for those that want that, it's perfect, but it's not accessible or respectful for modern gaming conventions.

That's more the reception Yooka-Laylee has received.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

If there were actually a large group of people that liked bad dialogue and glitches and it seems like the game was purposely made that way, then it's something that should be taken into account, isn't it?

Sure, but I'm specifically arguing that there probably aren't a lot of people who are into collectathons (or rather, the average reader of a site probably isn't into those).

If you were making a modern car, sure... but if you were, say, building an homage to an old, classic vehicle that's for a particular audience...


Some folks recreated the original Baker Torpedo to try and set the land record the car didn't quite originally manage to break in 1920, as close to the original specs as possible. That's damn cool, and there's people who are totally into that.

Or, as another example, you COULD make a modern, gritty, super-serious Batman film that wins Oscars and changes the landscape of the comic book movie industry... OR, you could go back to the 1960s, say "screw it" and make a campy, old, outdated film just for the fun of it.


If someone wants their dark and gritty modern Batman, does that invalidate the old and cheesy one full of puns and $5 costumes? If someone thinks comic books have evolved past this almost mocking approach to heroism, does that invalidate those that revel in it and wish to see more of it come back? Just because the market largely enjoys a newer version of this famous character doesn't invalid the ridiculously dated approach the '60s brought to Caped Crusader. Some people HATE the West material because of just how silly and stupid it is, when Batman to them is The Dark Knight, dammit, but it'd be silly to pan the original material, or a new installment that pays tribute to it (up to and including painted mustaches and intentional flaws), as inherently "bad" because it's "dated", and that was the maker's intent.


Mario hasn't really been a collectathon adventure game since Sunshine. I guess complaints about finding all those blue coins warded even Nintendo away from that approach.


But that doesn't mean a public or a critic can't misread a piece of work or approach a game the wrong way. Watching a journalist fumble his way through the new DOOM was painful to watch because they clearly didn't know what they were doing and thus weren't having a good time. Seeing someone get easily frustrated with Dark Souls and quit early because the game is "unfair" and "doesn't make sense" is failing to understand the game is not meant to be straightforward or easily grasped. I personally hate sports games, so it wouldn't make sense for me to review the newest MADDEN release since I simply wouldn't have fun with it; it's not for me. And goodness knows it took me forever to "get" Final Fantasy XII after hating it for nearly 100 hours; now I look forward to the HD re-release without the baggage I brought with me the first time around.

Sure, you could do that and like the other poster responded, sites that are for readers into these things would probably review them favorably for it. Sites like Polygon, Destructoid, etc... aren't those sites though; they review for a general audience because that is their audience, and the general audience is far more likely to continue reading their reviews if those reviews offer accurate recommendations of what the general readers like to play. If Polygon starts putting up 10/10 reviews for games that just have a person yelling for 30 minutes with lines like "This game completely accomplishes what the developers were going for" their readers aren't going to be cool with that.

This game isn't out yet so most ppl in this topic are projecting based on the opinions of others.

I'll revisit this after the 11th when most people can actually play the game.

This misses the OP's point; YL isn't the issue specifically. The OP was asking in general what it means when a reviewer brings up stuff like "games have evolved past X genre/mechanic/feature/etc..."

 

[Yoshi]

I think though this argument is a bit flawed since Shovel Knight, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze had the "feel" of being an old game, but was able to subtly include modern day QoL that generally goes unnoticed by people who played them. It makes the audience feel "This is just like it was when I was a kid!", when its really not.

Sorry, but in what way does DKCTF feel like SNES DKC? They are so incdredibly different. DKCTF does not feel like a game made in the SNES era at all.

Regarding Ratchet: Almost the full challenge comes from shooting, the level design is mostly linear and the collectibles are not used as a structuring element here. There are some traces of Spyro in it (which basically was the poster child for collectathon done wrong for not understanding the use of collectibles in a collectathon), but it is much more of a comic shooter than a platformer, or a collectathon platformer.

In general: What are those general flaws of the genre? Outside of camera please, all the time I'm reading "camera and such", but what is such?

 

[Garlador]

Sure, you could do that and like the other poster responded, sites that are for readers into these things would probably review them favorably for it. Sites like Polygon, Destructoid, etc... aren't those sites though; they review for a general audience because that is their audience, and the general audience is far more likely to continue reading their reviews if those reviews offer accurate recommendations of what the general readers like to play. If Polygon starts putting up 10/10 reviews for games that just have a person yelling for 30 minutes with lines like "This game completely accomplishes what the developers were going for" their readers aren't going to be cool with that.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm curious where the line is drawn.

Like, for instance, Dark Souls. Dark Souls is NOT for everyone. It's inaccessible, brutally difficult, often infuriatingly obtuse, has some serious technical issues (Blighttown, argh!), egregious grinding for better gear (drop Titanite Shards, damn you!), and has a ton of features that are downright annoying - by design - with little care or concern for your skill or respect for your time. You cannot play Dark Souls at your pace or your level; you have to adapt to the game on its terms, not yours.

And as popular as the series is, you'll find a person for every Dark Souls zealot who despises the game for these very reasons. You can't pause the game. The punishment for failure is too high for them. The game mechanics aren't clearly explained at times. Level navigation is at times atrocious (damn those balcony archers). There's important areas of the game hidden behind obtuse mechanics and poorly highlighted hidden walls. Important, essential gear can be half-way across the game-world and you'll only get vague hints to the location. So much of its plot and lore and even gameplay progression is buried in menus and item descriptions. It's not intuitive at all and so much of it seems designed by chance or randomness at times (how is anyone suppose to know Seath can't be killed the first time they encounter him?). Etc. Etc. For countless players, all of these issues are outright deal-breakers.

But most critics understand the game isn't TRYING to be accessible. Even the ones that struggle with it and get frustrated with it understand that it's by design and that what it's doing is masterful in execution for those that want this sort of challenge and game progression. Almost no critic is going to give it a 2/10, even if they have a bad time with it, because they understand that the fault was with them not grasping the mechanics in time or understanding they needed to approach the game differently than a traditional hack-n-slash adventure game or RPG. They rate the games for the intended audience, NOT the mainstream audience. Because, let's be honest, the average gamer struggles with Dark Souls and it took a long time for it to find its audience and grow from there after Demons's Souls (or, hell, the underrated King's Field franchise, which has receive a lot of retroative praise).

If I played Dark Souls and I hated my time with it (which I initially did) because it didn't play the way I wanted it to (which it didn't) and didn't explain itself to me well enough (also didn't) and I had to resort to walkthroughs and support forums and GAF members to help me understand what the hell I was doing (which I did), then does that mean my initial impression of the game as a sub-standard, stupid, unfair game that frustrated me more than rewarded me was incorrect?... or was this a case where after I approached the game with a new mindset, accepted what the developers were trying to teach me, and playing with a different approach, it was revealed to me as one of my favorite games of all time? Was the fault with the game, or with me?

 

[Ted]

Interesting thread with some good posts. Well worth the read.

I don't know much about the game in question but overall this seems more like a win for crowdfunding rather than any kind issue with reviewers.

In fact it feels like the very point of crowdfunding. The genre in question is out of favour with the larger general gamer populace (as reflected by the limited number of these games and you could say in the reviews) but can still be released precisely because fans of this genre can directly "put up" for the game in advance.

Assuming of course the crowdfunding actually pays for the game and isn't being used a platform for a larger investment drive.

 

[sn00zer]

Sorry, but in what way does DKCTF feel like SNES DKC? They are so incdredibly different. DKCTF does not feel like a game made in the SNES era at all.

Regarding Ratchet: Almost the full challenge comes from shooting, the level design is mostly linear and the collectibles are not used as a structuring element here. There are some traces of Spyro in it (which basically was the poster child for collectathon done wrong for not understanding the use of collectibles in a collectathon), but it is much more of a comic shooter than a platformer, or a collectathon platformer.

In general: What are those general flaws of the genre? Outside of camera please, all the time I'm reading "camera and such", but what is such?

The heft of Donkey Kong games and character presentation are absolutely "like" the SNES series.

Not arguing Ratchet is more of a shooter, but there are a ton of similarities you can draw aside from the shooting.

General flaws of adventure platforming from the 90s:
-Presentation of story and characters. Jak and Daxter showed you can tell a damn good story with a huge cast of characters in the context of a platformer. Also characters can be something more than one note. If they are just one note characters, you better make sure that is a damn good note and makes sense in context to the world.

-Relevance of side quests in the story. Everything you do in Ratchet and Jak has a purpose that feeds into the main narrative or characters. Side quests for the sake of sidequests is not enough. Players need a reason or a drive to do something and getting more collectibles or more of the same is not enough of a reason.

Honestly most of the things wrong with 90s platformers is giving the player a drive to do something. Being "wacky" isn't enough to carry a game anymore. In the same way CG films moved from "Madagascar" to "Toy Story 3", there just need to be more substance now that the luster of being a 3D game has gone.

 

[Shaanyboi]

It's silly because people backed this wanting a N64 Styled 3D platformer, and being made by ex-rare devs no less.

And those people who backed this are getting what they want. That doesn't mean other people coming to this are going to enjoy it, especially if they have no nostalgic ties to that era of games. I came to Banjo really late, and failed to see what anyone saw in it.

I can still enjoy the fuck out of alot of Mario 64 levels, but I never enjoyed the Rare N64 style of platformers. Except for Conker. Because he got drunk, and I was 12 and thought that was hilarious.

But the core novelty of that era of platformers was "Wow, look, we're in 3D! Look at these 3D environments you can run around!" But the core mission ended up just being nothing more than a sorta directionless "go collect things!" Not really any pace to it. Just... "Go get things!" That novelty doesn't exactly mean much. Even Mario 3D platformers moved away from that with the Galaxy games being largely pretty linear, sprinkling some secrets along the way. We'll see how Odyssey handles mission design in that older vein.

 

[sn00zer]

Also, not to harp on the art too much, but art design has come a long long way in the genre.

 

[Cipher Peon]

I don't understand. The enjoyment comes from figuring out how to reach a star coin or overcoming the challenge before the flag pole, not the fact that you reached it. The star coin itself shouldn't offer a reward for collecting it other than make a satisfying animation and sound effect; the reward is the realization, the a-ha moment. If it feels like a chore to collect and doesn't offer meaningful insight, then it's just a bad collectible.

You need forced progression in games in order to ensure that players have understood a concept fully before moving on to the next, so that you can design an area with the assumption that the player knows the basics and thus can expand and iterate upon them, providing more complex variations of what came before. In BotW every shrine and dungeon was designed as if it was your first, becasue it could very well have been, which resulted in a flat experience.

Have you played Braid or The Witness?

BotW is like you're studying university courses but all you're doing is going from physics 101 to chemistry 101 to martial arts 101. I want a game to hone in on one aspect, start out basic like physics 101 then move on to physics 102 after I have a full grasp of the basics, and after that 103, ... etc until I graduate which is denoted by the ending. That's much more satisfying than mindlessly enjoying a game as content tourism.

This is the ending of Braid, a castle built by the individual blocks that represent each level in a game, an idea, and together they form the complete picture. You can't understand level 2 unless you fully grasp level 1, and that's how the game keeps building up your knowledge base until you see the big picture. Once you do the game ends.


BotW is like you're building 10 different castles, but each one is only at the starting phase and never reaches a satisfying conclusion.

I feel the complete opposite on every point.

My enjoyment comes from the acquisition of the shiny collectible, the progress I'm making towards my own micro and macro goals, and the satisfaction that I've accomplished something. It definitely doesn't come from the process of doing so. While I can enjoy the journey, the destination is the satisfaction and payoff that makes it worth it. Especially considering that there are many journeys that turn sour and solving it comes across less as "a-ha" and more "it's FINALLY over."

I don't like forced progression and I thought the original Banjo Kazooie was all peachy until the very end due to the double whammy of the board game (which is by far one of the worst things I've been forced to do in an otherwise fine game EVER) and the "go back to play more of the game, jerk" soured my experience. The fact that this is a criticism towards Yooka-Laylee concerns me. Also I don't enjoy being "forced" to do anything, especially if it's something that I find unfun. I have no interest if I mastered a mechanic or an area that I didn't enjoy. If I don't want to revisit it, forcing progression until I do sounds like an easy way to make me unhappy.

I've played Braid and didn't enjoy it, mostly because I found it dull. But everything I've seen about The Witness made it seem like everything I am opposed to game design, especially the apparent extreme lack of accessibility. I do look forward to playing the game, because I'd like to confirm for myself.

I love that BOTW is a 101 buffet I love the variety and the fact the game encourages you to play it your way and to try a billion different things. I wish it went farther (especially in dungeon design and enemy variety), but for what it is, I adore it. I much rather a game to encourage a variety of fun things to enjoy, the billion of "101 courses" as you described, instead of going to 103etc. The tourism quality you described fits my preferences and fleeting lifestyle a LOT, especially since it's significantly more accessible and kinder to people who can't dedicate to playing games due to busy lives.

So I think it's pretty easy to understand. Different people have different tastes and have different metrics for "where the enjoyment comes from".

 

[Camjo-Z]

.....no. Movement and platforming is a huge part of the series. Also there are a ton of collectables, minigames, unlockable movement options, puzzles, open platforming areas, side mission characters peppered throughout levels.

Honestly outside of the way you engage enemies they are incredibly similar to collectathon games. I have no idea why you would call them "in no way comparable"

Waffles are made with flour, eggs, oil, and milk. Cake is also made with flour, eggs, oil, and milk. Would you want to have a waffle on your birthday instead of cake?

3D platformers share many elements but the way they're executed is what makes them different. As a game focused mainly on combat and linear levels, Ratchet does not handle any of those things listed in a way that would satisfy a fan of collectathons like Banjo, and I say this as someone who would put ACiT high on their list of "best games ever".

Also, not to harp on the art too much, but art design has come a long long way in the genre.

If by "art design has come a long way" you mean "one of these games is funded by a AAA publisher's endless pockets and the other is done on a Kickstarter budget" then sure.

 

[Garlador]

If by "art design has come a long way" you mean "one of these games is funded by a AAA publisher's endless pockets and the other is done on a Kickstarter budget" then sure.

I thought he meant that BOTH look spectacular.

Compared to the originals:

 

[sn00zer]

If by "art design has come a long way" you mean "one of these games is funded by a AAA publisher's endless pockets and the other is done on a Kickstarter budget" then sure.

Okay here's a better comparison. One evolved the designs from the early days. Another transplanted the design.