Support NeoGAF

[MightyHedgehog]

Do you not understand that I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but none of it contradicts what I've said about why this game isn't selling.

I'd like to believe that a ton of people just started paying attention to whether or not they had fun with the first and decided to pass on the second. Perhaps LBP2 was simply a game most of the people who bought the first didn't ask for nor want. The controls are a big part of that was all I was saying, so even without numbers on my side, I can make a pretty safe guess that the most common sentiment I've seen regarding LBP and its sequel is a major factor in why it hasn't grown in popularity or sales. Good controls don't ensure that a game becomes a big seller, but I think that the lack of them can help to ensure a game isn't one.

I mean, in the age we live in, with the Internet as ubiquitous and instantaneous as any platform for communication has ever been, word of mouth is a bigger deal now than ever...even more, I believe, than the direct marketing efforts people seem to believe dictate overall success for a franchise in the long term. Even if a person cannot articulate what they don't like about something beyond saying that it's too floaty or that the controls suck, it probably matters a whole lot to who they're speaking to and that's going to stop the train in its tracks due to that uncertainty of quality and worth for a $60 game. If a lot of people share this issue, I think that you can be sure that it's a big part of the eventual sales performance of that title. Somewhere in between the two biggest complaints I've heard about the series (controls suck and levels suck and/or are boring) rests a general agreement that the core gameplay experience itself was not quite what a lot of people want and fails to match the desirable standards of its peers in the genre. The series seems to have the look and the hype for most people, but apparently not a good enough hook to have legs to run with the big dogs.

 

[Ledsen]

Floaty physics kill the game.

 

[Ravage]

It's a shame LBP2 didn't sell more than it did. Gameplay wise, it's such a huge improvement over its predecessor and is easily one of the most fun and charming game this gen.

But i suspect that the insane amount of content LBP1 offers provided little reason for most of its userbase to buy a sequel.

 

[Apath]

Here's some food for thought.

Jet Set Radio Future has fantastic controls. This game bombed when it released, and was almost immediately sold as a free pack-in to the Xbox.

If I made a topic about why it isn't more popular, you wouldn't say "Because it controls poorly."

You'd consider a number of other factors...as you should here.

I do not think it controls poorly. I think the actual mechanics of jumping and grabbing things just are not fun. I've never had to really wrestle with the controls.

And besides that, an issue for one game can be a non-issue or another. Games are extremely different, especially when you branch across genres. It's to be expected that receptions to certain flaws will be greater and lesser between them.

Has there ever been a game focused so much around user-generated content that's sold more than LBP? Genuinely curious.

Warcraft 3.

 

[Speevy]

There are two things all four of these games have in common: they were all immense right-place-right-time successes as a result of defining brand new genres... and they've all seen so much positive iteration on their control schemes that many people consider the originals unplayably dated today. Yes, these certainly prove that a game can succeed despite control problems -- but all of these titles offered something completely unprecedented and deeply appealing (not a claim LBP can make) and all of them nonetheless rapidly moved to fix that control deficit.

Okay, that's fair enough. However, I believe that the level of customization and content present in LBP1/2 is something that is unquestionably unprecedented in the console space. That is not relevant to discussing its lack of appeal.

You did point out something interesting though. Media Molecule can refine LBP's controls on a new platform. Maybe that's what they need to quiet the naysayers.

The idea that nitpicking over controls is a core gamer hobby horse is absurd. (If anything, core gamers are unusually willing to tolerate terrible controls when a game has other things to offer -- see Team Ico.)

Team ICO is the gaming equivalent of art house though. People find appeal beyond the realm of tangible things because it speaks to them. LBP could never do that.

There are plenty of things dedicated hobbyists make hay about (achievements and bonus content, length, innovation, and especially graphics) that are irrelevant to most people's gaming experiences, but controls are the very core of gaming, the singular thing that separates a game from a static entertainment.

That is absolutely true. What I am arguing is that LBP's lack of appeal did not come from a snowball of negative publicity about its controls. It's just plain unappealing to most people for other reasons.

When someone who games casually or is starting out for the first time tries a game that controls poorly, they don't necessarily know what the problem is, only that the experience of interacting with the game is frustrating and unpleasant instead of fun and natural. This is like game craftsmanship 101 -- the clearer and less resistant the core feedback loop between the player and the screen is, the more easily you can convince someone to lose themselves in the experience.

Again, I agree. I do not wish for anyone in this topic to say LBP controls well if they do not find this to be true. I respect the opinions of the game's detractors, and I would welcome them to criticize the game to their heart's content.

What I want is for people to look beyond factors that take a more experienced player to discern.

If you look through this topic you'll see post after post of "Controls are floaty, hated the game.", which is fine.

That's a fine reason why LBP isn't the game for them.

That's a fine reason why LBP might not deserve the praise it's been given.

That's a fine reason why it might not even deserve the sales it's achieved.


But I do not believe it is the first and foremost reason why it may not have met sales expectations.

 

[Kandinsky]

I think it's the focus on the whole create and share thing, still love the games tho, Vita+LBP=match made in heaven.

 

[charlequin]

This is also my one complaint about Super Mario 64, which is otherwise a perfect game - Mario is too damn slippery, regardless of surface. It can be very difficult revisiting it after playing Galaxy for this reason.

Yeah. Unlike floatiness, I think slipperiness is a lot more contextual and also taste-based, but I also find SM64 kind of rough for exactly that reason.

That's why the controls are garbage. Entirely physics-based controls have no place in a platformer.

Yup. I mean, technically all platformers are based around some kind of object physics, but the problem with games like LBP is that they try to build platforming into a generic object physics engine.

The design goals of a game physics engine and of a platformer are actually at explicit cross purposes. The way objects interact in real life is complex and has tons of inflection points: if you drop a ball onto a stack of blocks, almost imperceptible differences in positioning, angle, and speed can completely change the result, and physics engines try to capture this, either to create more realistic visual behavior in a game or to create puzzle elements where the player applies their knowledge of real-life physics to intuitively achieve a goal.

The goal in a platformer, on the other hand, is to remove inflection points: for objects to interact in straightforward, comprehensible ways. A good platformer has systems that a player can understand implicitly and predict the behavior of; that allows them to focus instead on the actual platformer gameplay, the execution of navigation through an environment. In the best platformers people talk about getting into a "flow" and this sort of simple physics is exactly what enables that -- you can look at the screen, know exactly how all the parts interact, and then focus just on implementing the motions needed to get where you need to go.

When you build a platformer on a generic physics engine, you get a game where consistent inputs don't produce consistent outputs, and you have to compensate with overbroad level design to make up for a lack of precision. (Which is exactly what happened with LBP.)

 

[Apath]

I think it's the focus on the whole create and share thing, still love the games tho, Vita+LBP=match made in heaven.

Agreed. The gameplay has always been a perfect match for handhelds. The touch screen is the perfect match for creating levels and content.

 

[jett]

Yeah. Unlike floatiness, I think slipperiness is a lot more contextual and also taste-based, but I also find SM64 kind of rough for exactly that reason.



Yup. I mean, technically all platformers are based around some kind of object physics, but the problem with games like LBP is that they try to build platforming into a generic object physics engine.

The design goals of a game physics engine and of a platformer are actually at explicit cross purposes. The way objects interact in real life is complex and has tons of inflection points: if you drop a ball onto a stack of blocks, almost imperceptible differences in positioning, angle, and speed can completely change the result, and physics engines try to capture this, either to create more realistic visual behavior in a game or to create puzzle elements where the player applies their knowledge of real-life physics to intuitively achieve a goal.

The goal in a platformer, on the other hand, is to remove inflection points: for objects to interact in straightforward, comprehensible ways. A good platformer has systems that a player can understand implicitly and predict the behavior of; that allows them to focus instead on the actual platformer gameplay, the execution of navigation through an environment. In the best platformers people talk about getting into a "flow" and this sort of simple physics is exactly what enables that -- you can look at the screen, know exactly how all the parts interact, and then focus just on implementing the motions needed to get where you need to go.

When you build a platformer on a generic physics engine, you get a game where consistent inputs don't produce consistent outputs, and you have to compensate with overbroad level design to make up for a lack of precision. (Which is exactly what happened with LBP.)

You said it better than I ever could have.

 

[charlequin]

Okay, that's fair enough. However, I believe that the level of customization and content present in LBP1/2 is something that is unquestionably unprecedented in the console space.

It's hardly significant on the level of those examples, but sure, I agree. I think most of LBP1's sales can be chalked up to the appeal of that functionality.

You did point out something interesting though. Media Molecule can refine LBP's controls on a new platform. Maybe that's what they need to quiet the naysayers.

It's not even a question of quieting naysayers, it's a question of making a game that most players walk away from saying "that was fun!" instead of "man that was almost fun!"

That is absolutely true. What I am arguing is that LBP's lack of appeal did not come from a snowball of negative publicity about its controls.

This is assuming that people stick with a franchise they've tried out by default and only an immense weight of bad publicity could change things. All you really need is for people to feel vaguely underwhelmed or nonplussed by a game and they're unlikely to run out to get the sequel.

But I do not believe it is the first and foremost reason why it may not have met sales expectations.

To clarify, I don't think floaty controls had anything to do with LBP's initial reception but I think it was a big factor in the franchise decline for LBP2 (alongside other factors like a lack of compelling new hook, a reduced marketing effort, etc.)

 

[Sipowicz]

the game part of it is just shit.

i absolutely love the look and the customisation stuff. couldn't be fucked with the lever editor (but then again i never can)

prior to playing it i thought it would be my favourite game of the generation. after playing the first 2 worlds i thought not

 

[neutralgamer02]

So, why did both LBP get 9.0+ in most of their reviews if the controls are "terrible" for a platformer? Doesn't really make sense. If it is an average like many in this thread say, wouldn't have gotten an average score like many average games are suppose to?

 

[Otheradam]

To be honest, it's been marketed as more of a "build your own levels" type of thing than an actual platformer. And that relies on the community to build levels, which not a lot of people have the creativity or will to create awesome levels. Also, it's a platformer that doesn't star Mario.

 

[neutralgamer02]

To be honest, it's been marketed as more of a "build your own levels" type of thing than an actual platformer. And that relies on the community to build levels, which not a lot of people have the creativity or will to create awesome levels. Also, it's a platformer that doesn't star Mario.

Even though LBP2 only sold 1.5mil, it's community is pretty darn robust. It has had millions of user created levels from my understanding. People who liked the first game definitely supported the second. Just seem to have lost the some casuals.

 

[jump_button]

http://spotlight.lbpcentral.com/

anyone looking for good levels looks here 1104 LBPC spotlight levels

 

[jman2050]

So, why did both LBP get 9.0+ in most of their reviews if the controls are "terrible" for a platformer? Doesn't really make sense. If it is an average like many in this thread say, wouldn't have gotten an average score like many average games are suppose to?

Reviewers are either stupid or intentionally disingenuous. I don't need need to refer to LBP at all to make that statement.

 

[charlequin]

So, why did both LBP get 9.0+ in most of their reviews if the controls are "terrible" for a platformer?

Classic case of reviewer disconnect from end user expectations. LBP is 95 on Metacritic, but its user score is 65. That speaks to a massive, qualitative difference in what reviewers were actually looking at to form their conclusions and how people actually use the product when it's in their hands. Like with most such disconnects in game reviewing, I'd posit that the reviewers were won over by the power and depth of the innovative elements (the content-creation system) while the general players were pissed off by the problems with minute-to-minute casual play (the controls and level design.)

 

[Aeana]

Yeah. Unlike floatiness, I think slipperiness is a lot more contextual and also taste-based, but I also find SM64 kind of rough for exactly that reason.



Yup. I mean, technically all platformers are based around some kind of object physics, but the problem with games like LBP is that they try to build platforming into a generic object physics engine.

The design goals of a game physics engine and of a platformer are actually at explicit cross purposes. The way objects interact in real life is complex and has tons of inflection points: if you drop a ball onto a stack of blocks, almost imperceptible differences in positioning, angle, and speed can completely change the result, and physics engines try to capture this, either to create more realistic visual behavior in a game or to create puzzle elements where the player applies their knowledge of real-life physics to intuitively achieve a goal.

The goal in a platformer, on the other hand, is to remove inflection points: for objects to interact in straightforward, comprehensible ways. A good platformer has systems that a player can understand implicitly and predict the behavior of; that allows them to focus instead on the actual platformer gameplay, the execution of navigation through an environment. In the best platformers people talk about getting into a "flow" and this sort of simple physics is exactly what enables that -- you can look at the screen, know exactly how all the parts interact, and then focus just on implementing the motions needed to get where you need to go.

When you build a platformer on a generic physics engine, you get a game where consistent inputs don't produce consistent outputs, and you have to compensate with overbroad level design to make up for a lack of precision. (Which is exactly what happened with LBP.)

can I like or retweet this post

 

[-PXG-]

The creation is much more fun than the actual game. However, it's incredibly vast and overly complicated. It demands too much time for anyone to really get into and make something coherent. The platforming mechanics are floaty and inconsistent, which isn't good for something that is essentially a 2D platformer.

If it just had tighter controls and if I had no real-life obligations, it would be the perfect game for me.

 

[neutralgamer02]

Classic case of reviewer disconnect from end user expectations. LBP is 95 on Metacritic, but its user score is 65. That speaks to a massive, qualitative difference in what reviewers were actually looking at to form their conclusions and how people actually use the product when it's in their hands. Like with most such disconnects in game reviewing, I'd posit that the reviewers were won over by the power and depth of the innovative elements (the content-creation system) while the general players were pissed off by the problems with minute-to-minute casual play (the controls and level design.)

Well LBP2 is 91 metacritic, while the user score is 81. There doesn't seem to be as big a disconnect with that game. Both seem to think it is a good game.

 

[kevm3]

Let's be real. What platformer besides Nintendo's are really tearing it up, especially on 360 or PS3? Didn't Rayman Origins sell only like 50,000 copies? The problem is, games like a call of duty are much more marketable to these days to the masses. A lot of people feel that platformers, especially with the aesthetic of LBP, is 'for the kids.'

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I just dont find the building meta fun, and I find the controls to be a bit harsh.

Let's be real. What platformer besides Nintendo's are really tearing it up, especially on 360 or PS3? Didn't Rayman Origins sell only like 50,000 copies? The problem is, games like a call of duty are much more marketable to these days to the masses. A lot of people feel that platformers, especially with the aesthetic of LBP, is 'for the kids.'

depends on what you call a platfomer, pop 2008, assasins creed, and crackdown are all "platformers" in my opinion.

 

[-PXG-]

So, why did both LBP get 9.0+ in most of their reviews if the controls are "terrible" for a platformer? Doesn't really make sense. If it is an average like many in this thread say, wouldn't have gotten an average score like many average games are suppose to?

Don't ever take mainstream video game journalism and reviews seriously. They should not be a barometer for anything, besides bad writing and clear bias.

 

[dacuk]

Wrong platform. Would have been huge on the Wii.

For real

 

[neutralgamer02]

Don't ever take mainstream video game journalism and reviews seriously. They should not be a barometer for anything, besides bad writing and clear bias.

Well, I and many others agree with reviews b/c I think it is a good game. It is many of the posters in this thread that disagree.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Classic case of reviewer disconnect from end user expectations. LBP is 95 on Metacritic, but its user score is 65. That speaks to a massive, qualitative difference in what reviewers were actually looking at to form their conclusions and how people actually use the product when it's in their hands. Like with most such disconnects in game reviewing, I'd posit that the reviewers were won over by the power and depth of the innovative elements (the content-creation system) while the general players were pissed off by the problems with minute-to-minute casual play (the controls and level design.)

Metacritic user score is irrelevant. Is filled with console warriors posting fake reviews. Gears 3 has a 75 review score despite being the best Gears yet. It's like that in pretty much all exclusive titles.

Don't ever take mainstream video game journalism and reviews seriously. They should not be a barometer for anything, besides bad writing and clear bias.

Yeah, it's best to take awards into consideration:

Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Awards 2008

Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction
Outstanding Achievement in Visual Engineering
Outstanding Achievement in Character Performance
Outstanding Achievement in Game Direction
Outstanding Innovation in Gaming
Family Game of the Year
Console Game of the Year
Overall Game of the Year

BAFTA

Artistic Achievement


http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/news/awards/

 

[RockmanWhore]

The platforming mechanics are floaty and inconsistent, which isn't good for something that is essentially a 2D platformer.

Trust me, there is nothing inconsistent about LBP's physics. It's just physics, the movements of the platform you're standing on affects your jumps. Once you understand that, there is absolutely nothing random or inconsistant. I can accept that people find LBP's control too floaty and slow, but it's very consistant. As of myself, I wish more games had some physics like that, as much as I love Mario and Donkey Kong Returns, I'm always pissed to see that the platform don't affect my jumps at all unless it's a recoil or something.

 

[gutter_trash]

LBP1's creation mode was too daunting for the moderate like me who doesn't have time to go all out with the complexities of the creation mode.

making a game that appeals to the mass but develop a creation mode that will only hook the hardcorers with time on their hands is a fail to my eyes

 

[Metalmurphy]

LBP1's creation mode was too daunting for the moderate like me who doesn't have time to go all out with the complexities of the creation mode.

making a game that appeals to the mass but develop a creation mode that will only hook the hardcorers with time on their hands is a fail to my eyes

How is it a fail if it's optional? You can still enjoy the campaign and countless other creations made by others.

 

[The Lamp]

Yeah. Unlike floatiness, I think slipperiness is a lot more contextual and also taste-based, but I also find SM64 kind of rough for exactly that reason.



Yup. I mean, technically all platformers are based around some kind of object physics, but the problem with games like LBP is that they try to build platforming into a generic object physics engine.

The design goals of a game physics engine and of a platformer are actually at explicit cross purposes. The way objects interact in real life is complex and has tons of inflection points: if you drop a ball onto a stack of blocks, almost imperceptible differences in positioning, angle, and speed can completely change the result, and physics engines try to capture this, either to create more realistic visual behavior in a game or to create puzzle elements where the player applies their knowledge of real-life physics to intuitively achieve a goal.

The goal in a platformer, on the other hand, is to remove inflection points: for objects to interact in straightforward, comprehensible ways. A good platformer has systems that a player can understand implicitly and predict the behavior of; that allows them to focus instead on the actual platformer gameplay, the execution of navigation through an environment. In the best platformers people talk about getting into a "flow" and this sort of simple physics is exactly what enables that -- you can look at the screen, know exactly how all the parts interact, and then focus just on implementing the motions needed to get where you need to go.

When you build a platformer on a generic physics engine, you get a game where consistent inputs don't produce consistent outputs, and you have to compensate with overbroad level design to make up for a lack of precision. (Which is exactly what happened with LBP.)

Now this is an elegant and eloquent perspective. Thanks for that. I can understand why it might not have been a good idea now (and it's hard to change my mind on things, look at the first few pages of my posts in this thread).

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I own both, but I've never had much fun actually playing the game. The building stuff is incredibly deep and pretty impressive, but I've never enjoyed playing through any levels I've built or downloaded. Platformers with levels of depth are weird to begin with, but the control mechanics always felt too loose for me.

Granted, I dunno if that has anything to do with sales.

 

[Haunted]

Perfect first reply strikes again!

So, I just got a ps3 a couple of weeks ago and started playing little big planet 2. It is really fun and really unique as a platformer unlike many others that I have played or seen in generation. I'm just wondering why this franchise isn't more popular? Do people not like it or something?

Anyway, if this isn't the best platformer of this generation what is?

Mario Galaxy 1+2 are the best platformers this generation.

 

[neutralgamer02]

How is it a fail if it's optional? You can still enjoy the campaign and countless other creations made by others.

Yeah, I don't understand the poster's argument. Does he want to be able to make awesome levels in a flash or something? If you want to make great levels put in the time. If you don't then play the amazing levels already available. There are no shortcuts.

 

[charlequin]

Metacritic user score is irrelevant. Is filled with console warriors posting fake reviews.

So why do both Uncharted 1 and 2 have 88s? Or God of War 3 an 86? Switching platforms, why does Mario Galaxy 2 a 93? What is it about LBP that brings out that absolute, immense, frothing mass of hatred when the games that actually serve as tentpoles for the platforms seem to be spared?

Historically, Metacritic user scores actually correlate very well with games that experience significant GAF backlash after a round of extremely positive reviews: GTA4, LA Noire, Halo Reach, etc. all score far lower in user scores, while perennial darlings all do nearly as well with users as with reviewers. I don't want to hold this up as a true objective measure of quality, but it seems to correlate well with expectations and people's satisfaction with a game based on what they wanted to get out of it.

 

[Death Dealer]

I didn't have fun playing LBP. I paid full retail for it, was bound and determined to find out what the hype was about, but stopped playing it a week later despite having not finished the game.

The big drop off in LBP2's sales makes me think many people share my opinion.

 

[neutralgamer02]

So why do both Uncharted 1 and 2 have 88s? Or God of War 3 an 86? Switching platforms, why does Mario Galaxy 2 a 93? What is it about LBP that brings out that absolute, immense, frothing mass of hatred when the games that actually serve as tentpoles for the platforms seem to be spared?

LBP2 has a user score of 80+ so your argument doesn't work with that game. But I agree with that poster that using metacritic scores is pretty stupid. LBP has won many awards that aren't just given to crap games so it is most likely that the important people and many gamers in the gaming community agree that game is good.

 

[Metalmurphy]

So why do both Uncharted 1 and 2 have 88s?

Exactly, why do they? Considering U2 is a VASTLY superior game in just about everything, it just shows how little it means.

What is it about LBP that brings out that absolute, immense, frothing mass of hatred when the games that actually serve as tentpoles for the platforms seem to be spared?

I don't know it brings out both the Nintendo and Xbox fanboys? After that CGD and E3 it was also one of the most hyped games for PS3 as well.

 

[jman2050]

LBP2 has a user score of 80+ so your argument doesn't work with that game.

The people who didn't like LBP didn't buy LBP2. Thus they'd have no reason to put in their user score.

 

[neutralgamer02]

The people who didn't like LBP didn't buy LBP2. Thus they'd have no reason to put in their user score.

You could easily say the same thing about SMG1 and SMG2. It's a dumb argument.

 

[Opiate]

I don't know it brings out both the Nintendo and Xbox fanboys? After that CGD and E3 it was also one of the most hyped games for PS3 as well.

But not the Sony fanboys? Are you suggesting that Metacritic is a conspiracy against Sony fans?

 

[Dr. Malik]

One time i spent around 2 hours decorating my hub, collecting the costumes is also fun

 

[jman2050]

You could easily say the same thing about SMG1 and SMG2. It's a dumb argument.

See, now I don't even understand the argument you're presenting.

 

[Metalmurphy]

But not the Sony fanboys? Are you suggesting that Metacritic is a conspiracy against Sony fans?

Even though I just mentioned how Gears also got affected by this?

I'm suggesting the user score is irrelevant. Why is this suddenly a surprise? There was news articles on how raids were bringing down scores for specific games, Metacritic had to make changes to the system to try and avoid that and everything.

 

[theBishop]

But not the Sony fanboys? Are you suggesting that Metacritic is a conspiracy against Sony fans?

?

Did I miss a critical piece of this conversation? LBP2 has 91% metacritic.

 

[Haunted]

LBP2 has a user score of 80+ so your argument doesn't work with that game.

No, that works against Metalmurphy's explanation of fake fanboy reviews, but actually bolsters charlequin's.

He's talking about the reviewer's disconnect from end user expectations. LBP 2 sold a lot less, which automatically means that it sold to a less diverse and more devoted group of people - who knew what they had to expect from the physics and the gameplay, lessening the amount of people who could be disappointed and potentially voice that in the Metacritic user reviews.


All that said, I do agree with Metalmurphy that user reviews are useless. Probably just as useless as professional reviews. Better to disregard all the numbers.

?

Did I miss a critical piece of this conversation? LBP2 has 91% metacritic.

They're talking about the 65 user score of LBP.

 

[Koren]

Editor = awesome.

Core gameplay and general aesthetic = not so awesome.

I partly agree with this.

I personally think that the gameplay in LBP1 is not bad per se, but not a gameplay designed for platforming. Clever level design can truly make the game enjoyable, but you must look for something else than "classical" platforming.

And I found that the game was really looking for its defining genre during the whole game. There's exploration levels, some platforming levels, minigames, some physical tricks, etc. It lacks some lisibility. It also lacked challenge. Besides, the level design doesn't shine (in fact, many user contributed levels are far better than official levels).

I truly enjoyed (loved) playing with the editor. But overall, the main game failed to make a big impression on me (I would have difficulties to describe more than 5 or 6 levels, while in most platforming games, I can remember dozen easily). For this, I haven't felt the urge to buy the second game, and based on the numbers, I must not be the only one.


I will not discuss the aesthetic, that's a matter of taste... For me, Sackboy are nice, and I found many place appealing. I still find it lacks some consistency and that overall, the screen is sometimes too cluttered (but that's not unusual in modern games, alas)

 

[theBishop]

I didn't have fun playing LBP. I paid full retail for it, was bound and determined to find out what the hype was about, but stopped playing it a week later despite having not finished the game.

The big drop off in LBP2's sales makes me think many people share my opinion.

For me, LBP1's on-disc content was more of a classic platform approach ("Sackboy World" if you like). LBP2's core story was too caught up in demonstrating all the insane new mechanical options. Even though LBP2 is a better game in almost every respect, the story simply wasn't as memorable.

 

[Metalmurphy]

?

Did I miss a critical piece of this conversation? LBP2 has 91% metacritic.

The discussion is about the user score in Metacritic and not the critic score. LBP1 has a userscore of 6.5 and to suggest it represents the quality of the game is just baffling.

 

[neutralgamer02]

See, now I don't even understand the argument you're presenting.

Read your own posts:

The people who didn't like LBP didn't buy LBP2. Thus they'd have no reason to put in their user score.

I replied with:

You could say SMG2 has a better metacritic user review b/c people who didn't like the first one didn't put their input in which caused its score to be bigger.

Basically, I'm saying the use of metacritic user reviews is stupid in judging games.

 

[theBishop]

The discussion is about the user score in Metacritic and not the critic score. LBP1 has a userscore of 6.5 and to suggest it represents the quality of the game is just baffling.

Meh. User reviews are useless. Why discuss them?