Support NeoGAF

[Freezie KO]

I don't disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How intelligent, well-thought-out, and reasonable.

 

[JoeFenix]

.

 

[JoeFenix]

I imagine most people start getting frustrated when they hit the Hoedowns, armored enemies that break your weapon when you hit them. You can't draw through them, your guys go flying all over the place AND you get shot at from off screen. By that point players aren't familiar with the unite guts or even worse probably didn't buy it from the shop yet so they just don't know what to do and get mad. Not giving the player unite guts and unite spring during the prologue tutorial was probably the biggest initial design fumble.

When it comes to drawing though, how do you keep the depth of the glyph system without asking the player to be relatively precise in his inputs? If they had went with a button or menu selection system for the powers it would have robbed the game of most of it's unique gameplay traits. The visual representation of your heroes forming the shape that transforms into your weapon or tool would have been lost with any other system.

So how do you make the system differentiate a circle from a square, well the only way to consistently do it is to require a circle to be a smooth motion with no pauses or corners. Once you realize that, it works near 100% of the time but most people (me included at first) don't do perfect circle motions. You might THINK you're doing circle motions but like a fighting game you're probably not doing the correct input at first. It's not intuitive in the sense that you need to focus on what you're doing AND experiment and analyze to figure out what the game wants you to do before you can consistently get the result that you want. Fighting games have history now, alot of people know how to do a dragon punch but back then it wasn't obvious at all. In a sense the boring loading screens were a blessing in disguise because that's where I would focus on experimenting and practicing with the drawing. I can close my eyes and draw the shapes and they just come out now, it took a while to get to that point though because whenever I would get a new power it would expose the fact that I wasn't really being precise with my inputs.

There's a reason W101 doesn't give you the speed liner right away, it's alot easier to draw accurate shapes when the line is slower. The game starts demanding more of you so gives you the tools to be faster. Drawing clean shapes is a huge part of mastering the game as evident by the fact that 101% mode doesn't give you any slowdown while drawing. I don't think a system like this could ever be initally intuitive but combine that with the fact that they essentially toss you in the deep end of the pool right after the prologue means most people will hit a frustration spike due to lack of understanding. That's where most P* games could do a better job imo, why did they not give you offensive defense in Rising at the beginning of the game? It's WAY too essential to be lumped in with the rest of the other moves you can unlock with no indication to the player that they REALLY should buy it right away.

 

[rohlfinator]

It's certainly a weak point for the gaming press, but at the same time if a game doesn't really "click" until you master it, I think that's a fair complaint.

If the game has unconventional mechanics, then it's all the more important that it communicates them in a fun and efficient way. Or don't! -- if the game is about having the players struggle through their confusion, then play to that emotion in a way that keeps them interested. Either way, "keep playing! it get's good after X" is probably not something you want people to be saying.

 

[Riposte]

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

This is one thing I don't quite like about Platinum's modernized design philosophy. In an attempt to make their games more marketable they push the punishment for failure into score penalties (something that doesn't give much frustration unless you care about score, which isn't most people and that includes people who love these games). It is a compromise I can at least sympathize with even if I don't agree with it, but ultimately the scenario you describe is what makes it harder to accept. Score is just a pretty number to make people feel like they've done something. I don't value it more than a strict challenge (that's the actual "something" we want to get done), so it is a poor exchange. TW101 is also especially forgiving in this respect, unfortunately. Retry has players picking up exactly where they died, enemies health remaining the same and such. (I think it is at least limited to four retries a mission?)

It's certainly a weak point for the gaming press, but at the same time if a game doesn't really "click" until you master it, I think that's a fair complaint.

Ah, but we should recognize just how relative this is.

First off, I think it paints TW101 in the wrong light to say you have to master it or even imply it has that high of a learning curve. Most games that get called hard don't require professional training, they just require you be capable of learning and having the patience for it. In the case of TW101, you just need to learn the controls. The trickiest part (drawing symbols) even comes with a game slowdown on the normal difficulty. Once you consider what I said above about penalties, I can't accept making TW101 sound like anything more than a somewhat forgiving 3D action game with some idiosyncrasies laid on top. Yes, maybe you'll be a little confused if you push through the first levels, but how unacceptable that is going to be relative.

Now I say it is relative because people don't have equal capability to learn, do not have equal discipline towards games, and do not have equal amounts of introspection required not to externalize failure at the drop of a hat. The last one is probably the most important ingredient here, as it is what separates people despite where their skill level is (whether they are fighting game pros struggling with a champion with a good character/team, game reviewers struggling with a simple mechanic, or moms struggling with dual analog FPS controls). With that in mind, when someone says a mechanic is "too unconventional" is only a "valid complaint" to people who can relate to that shortcoming. There is no reason for someone who has the stomach and appetite for difficult or unconventional games (to whatever extent) should concede that's reasonable, just like someone should not concede that videogames are unplayable without special aid because a blind person requires it.

Although, yes, this isn't going to make anyone feel better about a game. All you can do is understand where other people are coming from and why their point of view may shorter than your own to the point of uselessness (or farther to the point of being educational). Though I wonder if anyone who has come to dislike a game because of things they struggle to learn ever thought to themselves "I don't understand this game enough to pass judgment".

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

Look at Papers, Please.

IIRC you once came into a thread to say "this game sucks, play this indie game instead". And here we are with another random pitch (title bold and everything). Is this some persona you have going? Sleazy indie game pusher? lol

 

[Prince Vultan]

This smacks a little too much of "It wasn't that the game has a problem, it's that you sucked at it" for my liking, which is a sentiment I've had flung my way for stating how appallingly bad the controls in Kid Icarus Uprising are.

I'm not about to defend games "journalists" on anything, but just because someone isn't as in love with a game as you are doesn't mean they're to blame for that. Sometimes games just get the appraisal they deserve. W101 looks and sounds like something that was always going to have very niche/limited appeal... and turns out that's exactly what it ended up having.

When a Wii U game does extremely poor business even when judged solely by the standards of other Wii U exclusive titles, it might be time to admit there's some problem with the game itself on some level.

 

[Mulgrok]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

 

[Branduil]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

Why not?

 

[Fandangox]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

That's not how in-depth mechanics work. In W101 you pretty much learn everything you need to learn to play the game itself by playing the demo a couple of times.

How to draw morphs, team attack, multiple morphs. Everything is there.

But the game mechanics of these types of game make it so the more you play it, the more you get to discover different approaches and techniques and fleshing them out together to improve and do better at the game.

The game doesn't take 10 hours to learn. To master it? That's another story.

 

[Raysoul]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

1. Controls in W101 is as easy as drawing a circle and a line.
2. You are learning as you play and enjoy the game.
3. You sound like you are saying that all fighting games are wrong.

 

[Mulgrok]

That's not how in-depth mechanics work. In W101 you pretty much learn everything you need to learn to play the game itself by playing the demo a couple of times.

How to draw morphs, team attack, multiple morphs. Everything is there.

But the game mechanics of these types of game make it so the more you play it, the more you get to discover different approaches and techniques and fleshing them out together to improve and do better at the game.

The game doesn't take 10 hours to learn. To master it? That's another story.

That sounds like it was made properly then. There is a difference between learning the fundamentals and mastering nuances.

 

[Mulgrok]

1. Controls in W101 is as easy as drawing a circle and a line.
2. You are learning as you play and enjoy the game.
3. You sound like you are saying that all fighting games are wrong.

Most fighting games are designed poorly, imo. That is a discussion for a different thread though.

 

[Fandangox]

That sounds like it was made properly then. There is a difference between learning the fundamentals and mastering nuances.

There is. Although to be fair w101 is a little obtuse in all controls and stuff are explained quickly on the side of screen as you play, instead of a drawn out "tutorial" section Everything else is on the menus. I prefer it that way though.

 

[casmith07]

I'm stuck on GTA V right now, but I'm planning on picking this one up tomorrow at Target with the B2G1F deal along with Pikmin 3 and Rayman Legends.

 

[malboroking]

In my experience this is an ugly, ugly truth. I've listened to so many people, both on podcasts and elsewhere, essentially drip contempt in their tone for a game they've been handed that they simply don't care about.

Plus, in relation to TW101 specifically, I've been unsettled - yet not really surprised - to witness the creeping narrative of "look, I want to feel challenged by a game, but I just don't have time to you know, "be" "challenged". Ain't nobody got time for that, that's not what games are about. We've moved on." Listened to one jackass on a podcast say almost exactly that. (He did literally say games have moved on.)

The worst part about a lot of people who review games is their air of superiority over video game enthusiasts. Think about the reaction so many "games journalists" had about the complaints over Mass Effect 3s ending. Anyone who criticized the ending was a message board troll and we were all just a bunch of entitled whiners. I was reading an EGM from after the reboot the other day (which is terrible, btw) and all of the editorials were just thick with contempt towards the average video game fan.

I hate to throw all video game reviewers under the bus, but this attitude just seems pervasive throughout so much of the industry. Theres a lot of cool people writing about games, but for every Jeff Green (we miss you!) you've got an Arthur Gies who couldn't hate the audience he's writing to more.

 

[Basileus777]

I think the main premise of Boyd's argument:



is probably false. I say that based on the information released by Bioware about Mass Effect players, how the vast majority of them simply pick the most straightforward class and most don't actually progress very far through the game. There are a lot of people who do not devote more time to games than the reviewers do. I don't think Boyd's assumption that the average player is willing to put in hours of work mastering an unintuitive combat system is true. Certainly this varies based on the type of game and its audience, but TW101 is a cartoony beat-em-up - the sort of game that might be expected to appeal to a more broad audience rather than just to people with lots of time and patience.

Now, there may be a separate argument to have about whether reviews should be written for the average person thinking about buying the game or whether they should be written for more hardcore gamers who are willing to invest time in coming to grips with complex systems, but that doesn't seem to be the argument he is making here.

I think this is the truth of the matter here. Reviewers aren't the exception, most people who buy games don't play them in the way Boyd describes. There's nothing about what he's saying that applies to reviewers more than how games in general are played. Perhaps it's a shame, but reviewers are being true to their audience here.

Why not?

Mostly because they want to sell.

 

[Retro_]

Most fighting games are designed poorly, imo.

What about Chess?

That is a discussion for a different thread though.

I actually was thinking about making a thread for this exact subject

I cannot disagree enough with the accepted idea that games that don't teach you how to be 100% successful in 10 minutes are poorly designed. No game with true depth of play can do that.

This is one thing I don't quite like about Platinum's modernized design philosophy. In an attempt to make their games more marketable they push the punishment for failure into score penalties (something that doesn't give much frustration unless you care about score, which isn't most people and that includes people who love these games). It is a compromise I can at least sympathize with even if I don't agree with it, but ultimately the scenario you describe is what makes it harder to accept. Score is just a pretty number to make people feel like they've done something. I don't value it more than a strict challenge (that's the actual "something" we want to get done), so it is a poor exchange. TW101 is also especially forgiving in this respect, unfortunately. Retry has players picking up exactly where they died, enemies health remaining the same and such. (I think it is at least limited to four retries a mission?)

You don't know what you're talking about at all here.

 

[Neff]

I consider it irresponsible and possibly unprofessional to fail to review a game such as W101 by classic gaming review standards, and as such fault it on elements inherent to the era, ie, games that have no qualms about killing you if you let them, player 'failure' in itself being something to be responsible for and even celebrated, and controls that take time to learn and master. The reviewer who wants that smooth, uninterrupted experience of picking up a game and being able to play from start to finish with ease so they can see all the stuff they're really interested in today- narrative, one-liners, movie immersion, industry pretension etc- is going to collide face-first with something like W101. It's almost the equivalent of getting a porn movie reviewer to critique Schindler's List ("Lotta naked chicks, but black & white? Fuck outta here.")

It did ok with some review outlets, but it deserves way better. The game is a beautiful, superhuman effort of old-school gaming love, and reviews should have reflected that. Thankfully, Wonder-GAF among others are doing their job of singing its praises and hopefully will for some time to come.

 

[Freezie KO]

I consider it irresponsible and possibly unprofessional to fail to review a game such as W101 by classic gaming review standards, and as such fault it on elements inherent to the era, ie, games that have no qualms about killing you if you let them, player 'failure' in itself being something to be responsible for and even celebrated, and controls that take time to learn and master.

What classic games had you drawing shapes on your second analog stick?

I remember playing Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Galaga, Joust, Super Mario Bros., and Donkey Kong with nothing more than a few buttons.

 

[Retro_]

Yeah the elements PG's games have incommon with "classic" gaming isn't what's being criticized here.

It's the modern design complexities of the system. Like the drawing and some of the combat depth

 

[Neff]

I'd equate the Wonder-Liner with something like the first time you tried a Street Fighter Shoryuken or a Daytona powerslide. The first few times you try it, it seems impossible to pull off consistently. After a while, it becomes much more reliable. Most modern reviewers just don't have the patience or dedication to embrace design philosophy like that, and throw in the towel very early. A game that hinges around such techniques released today would suffer critically as much as W101 did, I'm sure.

 

[w1gglyjones]

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

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

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

Just to make a slight point about the "Saur conversation" without getting into much else.

The reason you don't see other people putting of videos or otherwise demonstrating proficiency (not even like Saur's) is because the pool of people who both own W101 and would want to actively improve their skills is tiny.

I'm not saying this to defend the idea that pointing to one guy who has success completely eliminates the experiences of reviews or players who have had little or none. What I am saying, however, is that the game offers an opportunity to learn how it plays, but because the Wii U itself sold so poorly, a good portion of its audience is young and W101 sold poorly, we will have few opportunities to see how various groups respond and adapt to the controls.

There is a wide gulf between "these controls suck" to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps." Games like Monster Hunter and Dark Souls have a similar spectrum, but it's easier to figure out which players get it, which need some help and which players don't, because they have larger audiences and we can analyze a larger sample.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I consider it irresponsible and possibly unprofessional to fail to review a game such as W101 by classic gaming review standards, and as such fault it on elements inherent to the era, ie, games that have no qualms about killing you if you let them, player 'failure' in itself being something to be responsible for and even celebrated, and controls that take time to learn and master. The reviewer who wants that smooth, uninterrupted experience of picking up a game and being able to play from start to finish with ease so they can see all the stuff they're really interested in today- narrative, one-liners, movie immersion, industry pretension etc- is going to collide face-first with something like W101. It's almost the equivalent of getting a porn movie reviewer to critique Schindler's List ("Lotta naked chicks, but black & white? Fuck outta here.")

It did ok with some review outlets, but it deserves way better. The game is a beautiful, superhuman effort of old-school gaming love, and reviews should have reflected that. Thankfully, Wonder-GAF among others are doing their job of singing its praises and hopefully will for some time to come.

As always, it's what they say and who is saying it, and not what's the score. I'd be a terrible fit on shooters, and any hypothetical review from me would be suspect and near worthless as both my criteria and expertise reside elsewhere.

Sometimes I kind of wonder if there's an alternate universe out there where the fighting game genre never hit that Street Fighter stage of evolution and remained simplistic or niche, or where SFII was a flop for some bizarre butterfly effect reason. 20 years later, a Japanese developer decides to pay homage to those old games with a new title, complete with those quirky inputs and complex mechanics.

I wonder how well it would be received. I'd imagine there'd be a lot of journalists distantly regarding it as a neat thing for a super niche audience. Podcasts and reviews aplenty complaining or poking fun at the stupid idea of wiggling a stick in a weird way while pressing a button to punch upwards, and YouTube videos of people doing basic combos and techniques considered some kind of impenetrable arcane trick.

I've thought this before with how homogenized controls have gotten with certain nice-but-not-exactly perfect set-ups enshrined as best and any deviation from this is considered crazy. There is so much moribund behavior now.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

You don't know what you're talking about at all here.

I don't agree with his dismissal of playing for score, but I think he's pretty accurate about Platinum toning down their retry structures to make their games appeal to more people (I think a lot of people that liked Bayonetta would have dropped it if it had a life system like DMC), and I don't think I'm a big fan of that. It didn't bother me much in Bayonetta or Vanquish, but Rising felt Meat Boy-ish on Revengeance (although that probably indicates deeper problems), and as excited as I am for W101, I think the "pick up where you died" thing sounds terrible. It seems like it'd basically make the game like credit-feeding a beat-em-up. I know that the game is hard to get a handle on, but I don't like the idea that you have to play for rank to get challenge out of the game.

 

[Freezie KO]

I don't agree with his dismissal of playing for score, but I think he's pretty accurate about Platinum toning down their retry structures to make their games appeal to more people (I think a lot of people that liked Bayonetta would have dropped it if it had a life system like DMC), and I don't think I'm a big fan of that. It didn't bother me much in Bayonetta or Vanquish, but Rising felt Meat Boy-ish on Revengeance (although that probably indicates deeper problems), and as excited as I am for W101, I think the "pick up where you died" thing sounds terrible. It seems like it'd basically make the game like credit-feeding a beat-em-up. I know that the game is hard to get a handle on, but I don't like the idea that you have to play for rank to get challenge out of the game.

I love Pikmin 3, but this was my only problem with the game. When playing the main story mode, the only real challenge comes from trying not to get pikmin killed or forcing yourself to finish it in a certain number of days.

Actually beating the game, even with all the fruit collected, is ridiculously easy. I feel score-based challenge to feel less satisfying and more arbitrary.

 

[Messofanego]

IIRC you once came into a thread to say "this game sucks, play this indie game instead". And here we are with another random pitch (title bold and everything). Is this some persona you have going? Sleazy indie game pusher? lol

I've never played Wonderful 101, so I can't give my perspective on what's the problem with reviewers not getting to grips with it. I can only share my thoughts based on the kind of games I play (couldn't come up with an example of a hard to master AAA game). If I didn't make a valid point with my examples of an indie game and roguelike-likes, I'm sorry. Your posts are always insightful though, and I have fun reading them when you're not mentioning something against indie games.

 

[Lostconfused]

I will be honest:

This defense was the same one that PA used to defend AssCreed 1 lukewarm reception.

So dunno if is just the "silly reviewers" what happens with some of the "under serving " games

Well considering that one is the best game in the series, it's the only time this argument could even be applicable. Not to mention that the flaws of the game are the exactly ones mentioned in the current article. Not familiar, poor tutorial, not communicating mechanics up front or doing poorly.

 

[NewGame]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

That's not the case with W101. The tutorial takes 15 minutes tops. I haven't played many Platnium titles but everything makes sense very quickly and I was playing on 'normal' from the get go.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Games that take considerable effort to learn are pretty much a mystery for gaming PR people

 

[marc^o^]

if a game requires a player to invest as much time learning the controls as they would sitting in lecture for a typical college course they are doing something wrong. In other words, games should not take 10+ hours to teach fundamentals.

You get fundamentals within minutes. It's just that this is one of the deepest games there is, so after 10 hours you'll still be learning new things, new unite morphs, combos, etc.

 

[Pikelet]

I remember when Natural Selection 2 came out, a game with a very deep strategic, teamwork and action layer, and with one writer (can't remember if it was IGN or Gamesport) you could really tell that the reviewer couldn't give a shit, and did not expect anyone to notice that he had barely scratched the surface of the game.

It felt like the equivalent of reviewing a trailer of a movie, before writing 2000 words on why the plot didn't really make sense.

Besides the obvious factual errors, what really annoyed me was the clearly farcical air of authority in the choice of words. Then they slapped a 6/10 on it, and presumably picked up the next game on their pile of obligations. Of course, this was before the review was redacted due to justified fan outrage, but i digress.

If you don't have the time to in any way emulate the experience of someone who actually spent money on the product you are going to review, then what you are doing is worthless to people who aren't game reviewers.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

What classic games had you drawing shapes on your second analog stick?

I remember playing Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Galaga, Joust, Super Mario Bros., and Donkey Kong with nothing more than a few buttons.

It can be compared to Street Fighter II. You can button mash your way or get along fine with the sword for the most part. Or you could learn some slightly more advanced inputs for the cool stuff

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

On the flipside, I imagine it's perfectly possible to do all that stuff and still not like W101. At the end of the day, reviews are subject to lots of things, time included.

 

[Slavik81]

What about Chess?

Chess has a much smaller character set and move set than the average fighting game. It has only 6 types of pieces and only a couple ways to move each one. In some ways, it's a much easier game to learn than, say Street Fighter.

Of course, there's no button mashing in Chess, so in other ways it may be more difficult to learn.

 

[Raysoul]

On the flipside, I imagine it's perfectly possible to do all that stuff and still not like W101.

This would be impossible for this game. Very impossible.

 

[JoeFenix]

I think what truly bothers me is when someone (reviewers or not) calls something "broken" when they clearly don't have enough experience with the game to make that statement. I see that word thrown around left and right and it should only be reserved for the specific cases where it's actually true. If someone can consistently accomplish something in a game then it's not broken. Not many games have mechanics that are truly broken, people should try to come up with better ways to express what they mean instead of calling any game with unorthodox control schemes and punishing learning curves broken.

I've heard people say Metal Gear Rising is broken, W101 is broken, Bloodrayne Betrayal, the list goes on really. None of these games are anywhere near broken, it's usually thrown around by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about too. I remember someone calling Demon's Souls a broken game.... I mean seriously here.

It's perfectly fair for people to be frustrated with certain games and not want to push through until they start having fun. It's also perfectly fair if a reviewer can articulate why he didn't enjoy a punishing game but still recognize that the game has promise for those that want to dig deeper. But to state that something is broken or has severe issues when it's clearly not true is a big problem. You can say it's unintuitive or obtuse but I would never say something is broken unless I've really tested all the possibilities out.

 

[LaNaranja]

On the flipside, I imagine it's perfectly possible to do all that stuff and still not like W101. At the end of the day, reviews are subject to lots of things, time included.

I am pretty sure that is not possible. It is super charming. The characters and story are top notch. It is the Citizen Kane of cartoony nonsense.

I think that this game had a really bad demo. The city had too much shit going on in the scenery and it is a bad place to try and get you used to the controls. Some of the environments later have less stuff going on and it is way easier to keep track of your character.

But then again I really enjoyed Resident Evil 6 and that game got pretty much the same criticisms/ defense of people not taking the time to learn how to play it.

 

[zoukka]

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

Thanks for this amazing insight. The controls were not a problem for me. I played the demo a lot and mastered most of the basic mechanics already there. In fact I enjoy games that have unique controls schemes like RE4 and Metroid Prime. Limitations can be liberating after all.

But the constant changing of rules and very unclear cues make the first playthrough of 101 pretty annoying imo. The game is unique and I fully support Platinum on this.

Doesn't change the fact that it's nowhere near a 9 or 10 by any standards.

 

[marc^o^]

Doesn't change the fact that it's nowhere near a 9 by any standards.

It's a 10 by arcade standards, top 5 material.

 

[Neff]

I've gone through the game five times now.

The only aspect of W101 that isn't failsafe for a practiced player is Unite Build randomly refusing to let your last few guys contribute, which can be fixed by neutralising the stick and re-applying.

If you're having problems, it's you, not the game. Sorry.

It's a 10 by arcade standards, top 5 material.

Indeed. It's an arcade game through and through in that it doesn't explain its finer nuances, you'll have to experiment and figure stuff out to get the most out of it. This is something that people used to like doing, which is why W101 really shines against the modern competition, but it's not for everyone, clearly.

 

[PdotMichael]

It's a 10 by arcade standards, top 5 material.

Indeed. It's an arcade game through and through in that it doesn't explain its finer nuances, you'll have to experiment and figure stuff out to get the most out of it. This is something that people used to like doing, which is why W101 really shines against the modern competition, but it's not for everyone, clearly.

Sure, it's a 10/10 for fans of the game.

Doesn't change the fact that it could be possible that there are more than enough people who don't like the "arcade experience".
But if you guys only accept a perfect score why reading reviews or looking at ratings in the first place?

 

[Shiggy]

I don't agree with this opinion piece. I get the impression that the author is simply unhappy that some games he likes don't get the critical acclaim he wishes for. But not because others may find these games unappealing, but because they "don't get them and they don't invest enough time".

Where it gets to be a lot more hit & miss is when the press is faced with a skill-focused game that doesn’t easily fit into a pre-established category. These are games designed to be played over a period of months, honing your craft & improving your scores & times, not rushed through to see what happens at the end of the story.

It does not matter whether a game is designed to be player over a period of months or just a single day. If it is fun and well done, then a review will reflect this. If a game however does not really motivate players to keep on playing, then it's a stupid excuse to say "but it's designed to be played over months, you need to play longer to understand it". For many people, simply beating your own score is not much of a motivation anymore, thus it's reflected in the score. And yes, I am one of those who do not replay games and who are done with games once they see the ending (and potential post-ending content), even if played at easy (difficulty level) or if levels are scored.

And if the reviewer doesn’t even realize that this is a skill-focused game and instead thinks that the game is an experienced-focused game because it’s single-player and has a story? Heaven help the developer of that game who is hoping for a good metacritic score because they’re not going to get it.

Experience- and skill-focused games. I can see where the author is coming from but I find this a rather arbitrary distinction. A good author would have set up some criteria to explain what defines these categories.

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

I wonder what he is basing this on. How does he know that they most of them will enjoy it and keep on trying? Why is he so sure that most of them will not sell it or let it rot on the shelf? If I don't like a game within the first few hours, I will just stop playing.

There are many things that the developers of The Wonderful 101 could have changed to make the game more inviting to the press & general public for that matter but ultimately games like The Wonderful 101 are a poor fit for the gaming press.

All in all, it's more of a poor fit for most gamers and most people either due to its gameplay design or its visual design. To a lot of people, W101 simply looks unappealing.

 

[zoukka]

It's a 10 by arcade standards, top 5 material.

If only he game was more about the core gameplay and arena fights, I might even agree

And for the record, I absolutely hated the vehicle sections in bayo, made me question Kamiyas sanity.

 

[Retro_]

I don't agree with his dismissal of playing for score, but I think he's pretty accurate about Platinum toning down their retry structures to make their games appeal to more people (I think a lot of people that liked Bayonetta would have dropped it if it had a life system like DMC), and I don't think I'm a big fan of that. It didn't bother me much in Bayonetta or Vanquish, but Rising felt Meat Boy-ish on Revengeance (although that probably indicates deeper problems), and as excited as I am for W101, I think the "pick up where you died" thing sounds terrible. It seems like it'd basically make the game like credit-feeding a beat-em-up. I know that the game is hard to get a handle on, but I don't like the idea that you have to play for rank to get challenge out of the game.

That's how Bayonetta was too though

I mean it just seems weird that people are so hung up on the retry systems for games that are designed for you to complete them at any difficulty level without ever being hit. The retry system in these games is for newer players only. Once you reach a certain skill level it should be irrelevant to you as your goal has shifted from not dying to not being hit at all, ever.(I still get hit in bayonetta but I honestly can't remember the last time I died in the game.)

Death/Retries have nothing to do with the intended difficulty curve of these games. I have no idea why Riposte keeps insisting in every thread that they are or that they should be. It's like trying to smash a square peg in a round hole. The games he wants are not the games Platinum wants to make.(Save Rising I guess) The true difficulty comes from the score requirements, not the frustration of death. (which is far more interesting to me personally.)

If you don't like that, that's fine but I mean that's the game you're playing. It's not Ninja Gaiden and it's not trying to be.

A simple completion is SUPPOSED to mean nothing in Bayonetta and it's supposed to be nothing here. The actual difficulty comes in getting pure platinum on every act on every difficulty. That's what you do if you want a challenge but I mean for most people that's too difficult. Action games should only be about survival and crowd control and prioritizing troublesome enemies out of a wave! No one wants to think any harder than that about these games.

 

[Neff]

But if you guys only accept a perfect score why reading reviews or looking at ratings in the first place?

Nobody is doing this.

But if looked at by review criteria suitable for the genre, it's a triumph. Among the very best action games ever made. It should be getting recognition for that, not being docked a couple of points because it isn't Red Dead 2.

 

[Elfteiroh]

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

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

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

Came to say this. First game I play in my life that I don't play on normal, and I feel perfectly adequate doing that. They really should have named the "easy" option "normal" instead...

 

[rohlfinator]

I've thought this before with how homogenized controls have gotten with certain nice-but-not-exactly perfect set-ups enshrined as best and any deviation from this is considered crazy. There is so much moribund behavior now.

Probably some truth to this, but it's not really universal -- Brothers had a pretty unconventional control scheme and seemed to be very well received.

I think (and maybe I'm projecting a bit here) a lot of reviewers are just less tolerant of unique controls when they're used as a difficulty mechanism. Personally it's hard for me to get interested in a game where my reflexes or my ability to manipulate buttons/screens are holding me back. I'm more likely to put that sort of game down and find something that challenges me in other ways. Doubly so if it relies on imprecise touch- or motion-controls, because it's that much harder to tell if I'm doing something wrong or if the game is just bad at interpreting my input.

Chess has a much smaller character set and move set than the average fighting game. It has only 6 types of pieces and only a couple ways to move each one. In some ways, it's a much easier game to learn than, say Street Fighter.

Of course, there's no button mashing in Chess, so in other ways it may be more difficult to learn.

It's also kind of hard to compare to multiplayer games since they're so dependent on your competition. A noob playing Counterstrike against MLG pros is going to have a crappy time, but playing against their similarly-skilled friends will likely be enjoyable.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Fuck this thread is making me buy wonderful 101 I didn't get it after almost every major review site said it was average.


I guess that's the point of this thread.


I feel the first dead space got screwed over as well. Most reviewers rushed thought it in their cube while the game was meant to be experienced on a good tv with your surround sound set up.

Sound in general makes a huge difference but gets glossed over In reviews.

 

[Dr.Thunder]

I stopped reading reviews for games and movies a long time ago. I have even stopped visiting web sites that splash review scores across their home page (Good bye GT).

I will read impressions though. As long as those impressions don't have any arbitrary number, letter, or star based scoring systems.

 

[Love Deterrence]

Agreed, 100%. Sad that so many people, who actually factor review scores into their final decision on whether or not to purchase a game, will miss out on such an awesome game. The Wonderful 101 is the kind of game that this generation has been missing, because it is one of those games you have to get better at. Sad that most games nowadays are barely (if at all) worth playing through only once.