Support NeoGAF

[Garlador]

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was a kickstarter backer of this game exactly because he wanted to support a game to prove AAA publishers wrong about outdated games.


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

I'm well aware he backed it. I also don't think he understood fully what the pitch was. He was expecting a modernized Banjo, not an imitation that looked back more fondly than forward.

More importantly, I'm curious what Jim thinks of Banjo, Conker, or DK64 today. I may be presumptuous, but I don't think he'd be a fan either. But for someone like myself, I still enjoy that type of game, "archaic" and clunky as they are.

 

[M3d10n]

Video game reviews are so 1998.

 

[Gestault]

(From Gamerankings.com. I picked the PS4 version because I think that's how most people will be playing it. The PC version rated a bit higher.)

I think the "thesis statement" at the start of Nuts & Bolts about people thinking they want something (re: making another traditional collection platformer) but really expecting something else has ended up being an accurate prediction for this genre. Yes, there are other factors for how well executed an individual game can be to explain that number gap (and some people are going to love what's there in YL), but I think the reaction is exactly why N&B was made as the game it was.

 

[Dragonsushi]

I feel like many people don't realize this game was funded by fans of the genre. They asked for a BK spiritual successor and gave their money for a game exactly like this. The game was created for the backers first and foremost.

 

[InsaneFandom]

Seems like it was always going to be this way, it was always pitched as basically a Banjo Kazooie 3. It was clear from the earliest footage that they're staying very faithful to that idea, right down to character designs & voices
Pretty much all of the criticisms levied at it equally apply (or more so) to Banjo Kazooie & Tooie.

Personally I'm really looking forward to it.
For some people I guess the inherent limitations/outdated features are too much to overlook. Yeah, it doesn't look like it's evolved the genre in any meaningful way but I honestly don't care about that & never really expected it to. I really like that it's a throwback to late 90's platformers.

It looks like the final game delivers what Playtonic set out to do and what all of the pre-release info and footage has indicated. I'm happy with that

 

[Yoshi]

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

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

Mario Galaxy is not more, Mario Galaxy is a completely different kind of game. Mario Galaxy 2 is among my ten favourite games of all times, but the Galaxy games do not offer an evolution of collectathon gameplay, they offer a 3D-ification of classic Mario style 2D platforming. In fact, I think there are three types of pure platformers: Skill-based, collectathon (exploration-based) and performance (speed / reflex-based) games, all of which form a very distinct subgenre, none of which can substitute the other.

 

[afternoon delight]

It clearly needs a Season Pass, useless achievements to show no one, and streaming features to gain a few more points in the ol' review buckets.

Does it have any soda deals I can redeem points for?

 

[hodgy100]

I feel like many people don't realize this game was funded by fans of the genre. They asked for a BK spiritual successor and gave their money for a game exactly like this. The game was created for the backers first and foremost.

people backed for a multitude of different reasons.

I wanted a new rare platformer but i hoped they would modernise it more than they did.

 

[Garlador]

(From Gamerankings.com. I picked the PS4 version because I think that's how most people will be playing it. The PC version rated a bit higher.)

I think the "thesis statement" at the start of Nuts & Bolts about people thinking they want something (re: making another traditional collection platformer) but really expecting something else has ended up being an accurate prediction for this genre. Yes, there are other factors for how well executed an individual game can be to explain that number gap (and some people are going to love what's there in YL), but I think the reaction is exactly why N&B was made as the game it was.

And yet N&B flopped hard. It did okay with critics but not a lot of die-hard Banjo players.

I actually think those Banjo fans would get more pleasure and enjoyment for Y-L than what N&B gave us. Critics alone don't always get the market right (still amused at some Pokemon reviews in the 90s going "eh, good but nothing special".)

 

[RichiRamjag]

This has been my chief concern for this game, but luckily there is a patch coming. Hopefully this takes care of some of the camera issues and that if there are significant remaining issues there will be a future patch(es) as well.



See my link just above. I'm not sure it's known yet if the camera issues are sufficiently resolved by the day one patch (or if the patch is out yet).

Same. Camera issues were my biggest worry.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I'm well aware he backed it. I also don't think he understood fully what the pitch was. He was expecting a modernized Banjo, not an imitation that looked back more fondly than forward.

More importantly, I'm curious what Jim thinks of Banjo, Conker, or DK64 today. I may be presumptuous, but I don't think he'd be a fan either. But for someone like myself, I still enjoy that type of game, "archaic" and clunky as they are.

When he couldn't work out there was a high jump in the Yooka Laylee toybox, I was left wondering if he had ever played Banjo Kazooie or Tooie before. The controls came naturally to me, and it seemed the really obvious thing to try when he was struggling to make higher jumps.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

It really reads to me like "baby's first critical analysis." People say the same things about other genres (turn-based RPGs for one), and it sounds just as ridiculous. It's "I don't like it as much as other things" wrapped in a statement that makes one feel "right."

People try to justify their own tastes and inclinations as somehow inherently part of the "proper evolution of games," when really these things are as much as matter of taste as anything else. From everything I've seen of YL (a good bit), it seems like a perfectly fun game with its own flaws, one of which is not it's genre.

 

[show me your skeleton]

I feel like many people don't realize this game was funded by fans of the genre. They asked for a BK spiritual successor and gave their money for a game exactly like this. The game was created for the backers first and foremost.

hear that critics, it's not for you

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

(From Gamerankings.com. I picked the PS4 version because I think that's how most people will be playing it. The PC version rated a bit higher.)

I think the "thesis statement" at the start of Nuts & Bolts about people thinking they want something (re: making another traditional collection platformer) but really expecting something else has ended up being an accurate prediction for this genre. Yes, there are other factors for how well executed an individual game can be to explain that number gap (and some people are going to love what's there in YL), but I think the reaction is exactly why N&B was made as the game it was.

offtopic but I dont see the point in comparing this to N&B since you couldnt compare N&B to the N64 Banjos

 

[Yoshi]

(From Gamerankings.com. I picked the PS4 version because I think that's how most people will be playing it. The PC version rated a bit higher.)

I think the "thesis statement" at the start of Nuts & Bolts about people thinking they want something (re: making another traditional collection platformer) but really expecting something else has ended up being an accurate prediction for this genre. Yes, there are other factors for how well executed an individual game can be to explain that number gap (and some people are going to love what's there in YL), but I think the reaction is exactly why N&B was made as the game it was.

Please consider the fact that Xbox One Yooka has six more reviews and sits at 72%.

The thing is, though, that the quality of the game is another issue. A collectathon can be good (like Jak), it can be amazing (like Banjo) or it can be weak (like DK64), for all we know, Yooka may just be a worse collectathon than Nuts & Bolts was a building-challenge game. Because actually, Nuts & Bolts was great at what it set out to do, it just was not a good Banjo game and no substitute for a collectathon platformer. I'd argue the 80% average is even quite harsh for Nuts & Bolts - even though I was super mad at the game.

 

[Wozman23]

hear that critics, it's not for you

"Snakes and sparklers are the only ones I like."

"It's not you, it's the consumer."

The issue with this logic is that in a capitalist society, at the end of the day, the game still needs to be profitable to be considered a successful venture. There are plenty of great niche games and genres. But the sunshine and roses of one diehard fan really liking something won't pay the bills. If you can't find a large enough fan base to offset development costs you are basically a one-and-done game, and sometimes a one-and-done developer. I'm a big supporter of indies, the continuation of Rock Band, and various underperforming platformers like Sly Cooper, Tearaway, and Puppeteer. I even loved The Order: 1886. With Tearaway on the Vita, it reviewed phenomenally, but the sales didn't match its quality. Puppeteer has a niche audience, got favorable reviews, but it sold abysmally, so that IP is probably never coming back around again.

I'm not as keen on Yooka-Laylee, but as a guy who gets the short end of the stick, I'm glad the people who want it will get it. However if it doesn't make money either because of its quality or bad press, there won't be a Twooka-Laylee.

 

[Garlador]

hear that critics, it's not for you

You jest, but it's a bit true. It's a niche audience title and genre and a lot of players and critics don't like or enjoy that genre anymore.

Again, it's not even the first time. Happened to other genres and games as well.

Hell, I'll never forget the review Yahtzee gave for Demons's Souls panning it until a few years later when he realized after Dark Souls that he was approaching the game from the wrong perspective.

It wasn't inherently "bad"; it's just "different". There's few games like Yooka-Laylee on the market. It's for an audience hungry for an old-fashioned collectathon, with silly voices, candy-colored worlds, and faces on every item, prop, and effect.

Half of players will go "this is annoying and sucks" and half will go "this is my jam".

 

[JCX]

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

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

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

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

The 2 JRPGs that reignited my love of the genre (Bravely and Xenoblade) did so because they removed some of the annoying things that I no longer have time for.

 

[Ridley327]

I think the main point of those reviews is that the time collect-a-thon platformers is over

So, it's not that the games have been done better since hten. It's that people don't like the types of games they are to begin with, so doing them better is still not particularly appealing to those people. I posted about this in the YL review thread, but I feel that those collect-a-thon platformers are the reason that 3D platformers died out so quickly after the 32bit era. When you look at 3D platformers now, it's a pretty bare landscape. And what 3D platformer is still standing? Mario. The one that's main mechanics are still centered around platforming rather than running around looking for something shining.

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.

 

[More_Badass]

hear that critics, it's not for you

What does that even mean?

Just because one dislikes a game doesn't suddenly mean "critics" are some odd separate section of people. A "critic" is a player who's writing about their impressions of a game, No different from a person writing what they liked or disliked in an OT, except they have a louder voice and larger audience

A review not liking a game doesn't mean it's a critic vs fan thing. It means it's a "this person didn't enjoy this game" thing

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

People say the same things about other genres (turn-based RPGs for one), and it sounds just as ridiculous.

To be fair, a lot of turn-based RPGs ARE archaic and out-of-date and if all you're playing are the bad ones, it's easy to come up with the misconception that they're all like that.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

nvm

 

[Datschge]

I barely read game reviews as they most often tend to completely miss the point for game types the reviewer obviously doesn't care enough for. What I like to know is how a game fares by its own merits, no some nonsensical implied metaphysical astrological telling how well it relates to current trends and what modern players are supposed to like.

 

[nkarafo]

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

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

Mario Galaxy is not an evolution, it's a different game than Mario 64.

Mario 64 has non-linear levels with a 50-50 focus on exploration-platforming.

Galaxy has linear levels with a 100% focus on platforming.

Different games and i personally prefer Mario 64 even today. Sunshine was the actual evolution (technologically at least), although the final game wasn't as good in the end.

 

[Garlador]

The 2 JRPGs that reignited my love of the genre (Bravely and Xenoblade) did so because they removed some of the annoying things that I no longer have time for.

While I agree (especially since Xenoblade is my favorite game of all time), they also didn't come out expressly as throwbacks to the older games. Xenoblade is a huge EVOLUTION of the genre, but I wouldn't want an old-school Final Fantasy game remade in its style (or do I?).

Bravely Default is unique because it has all the "problems" prior turn-based games have. Random battles. Grinding. Turn-based combat. Etc. But it included features to minimize the annoyance ("auto-battle", "speed up", "change encounter rate"), giving players the choice to experience it as either a modern or old-school JRPG. For some, like myself, I jack that encounter rate up high and fight it out without the help.

There's a reason even FF7 re-released with new cheats to speed up players experiences or give them an edge.

Playing FF3 right now is hard. Very hard. Enemies can waste you in two hits. It takes forever to level up. Combat is slow. You can't save inside dungeons and if a boss kills you then you have to repeat the whole thing. I don't really enjoy having my time wasted, no.

But I also appreciate how the game doesn't care. You adapt to it, not the other way around. You died? Then get stronger. You ran out of potions? Then buy more next time. You didn't do much damage? Level up a better job class. You got poisoned? Should have stocked up on remedies at the last town. Got lost? You didn't talk to the town NPCs for directions.

But that's not an experience most players want. But it surely is the experience SOME players want, and miss.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Bravely Default is unique because it has all the "problems" prior turn-based games have. Random battles. Grinding. Turn-based combat. Etc. But it included features to minimize the annoyance ("auto-battle", "speed up", "change encounter rate"), giving players the choice to experience it as either a modern or old-school JRPG. For some, like myself, I jack that encounter rate up high and fight it out without the help.

Yeah, Bravely Default is an odd one in that they obviously realized that there were some issues with some aspects of old-school JRPG design but instead of changing things around and trying to avoid those issues, they just slapped some bandaids on them and called it good.

 

[GamerJM]

Not so much a matter of evolution as one of changing desires and motions. This game is of a time and place that was left behind to seek other needs and directions. It's a game with motifs that are displaced in time, which is just its intention to be fair.

People and media change, anachronisms for their own sake are... against our pursuit of what is to come, rather than what we have left behind.

What in culture/media/gaming changed to make people go from loving "collectathon," platformers to not caring about them between now and the late 90s, specifically?

 

[Doug Heffernan]

The modern open world action game has sort of replaced the platformer collectathon. What is GTA but a collectathon with mini games?

 

[Waddle Dee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You more or less summed it up perfectly. So often nowadays you hear critics and gamers alike tell this false narrative that games back in the 90's were just flawed or never good due to things that are completely subjective and often ingenious. For example, I love the limited save points in the earlier RE titles because it fits the tense nature of the game and adds extra depth to your inventory management but because it isn't immediate (you can't save whenever you want) and it restricts the player, a lot of people incorrectly consider it a flaw.

Certain negative reviews for games like Yooka-Laylee, Resident Evil 7, and no doubt the upcoming Sonic Mania show that some gamers have far too limited of a mindset when it comes to what mechanics can accomplish and how they can benefit games in unexpected ways. If a game doesn't match someone's preconception of what they want the game to be then they'll often blame the game.

 

[hydruxo]

I backed this game because I want a game out of that era. So they delivered on that for me and I will play the hell out of it.

 

[Synth]

What in culture/media/gaming changed to make people go from loving "collectathon," platformers to not caring about them between now and the late 90s, specifically?

Larger game worlds no longer being impressive, and becoming the norm. Back in the N64 days, stuff like Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie were novel in that they provided game worlds that consoles like say the Saturn flat out struggled to approximate at all. Nowadays we have shit like Grand Theft Auto V...

 

[Garlador]

What in culture/media/gaming changed to make people go from loving "collectathon," platformers to not caring about them between now and the late 90s, specifically?

Oversaturation.

Mario, Banjo, Conker, Gex, Glover, Bubsy, Vexx, Chameleon Twist, Donkey Kong 64, Spyro, Crash, Etc.

We were drowning in mascot platformers - most pretty awful - and when there's so much to gorge on, you lose your appetite for that flavor and move on to something newer and fresher.

I remember when 2D fighters fell out of favor to 3D ones too. Two decades later and 2D style is acceptable again, but for a long time it was frowned upon to be a 2D fighter, and there were so, so many of them at their peak.

 

[Peltz]

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

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

I don't normally agree with Spieler Eins, but in this case I do.

 

[Peltz]

This is how I feel about it:

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

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

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

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

You should play SM64 again. It's still very fun. The platforming itself holds up.

 

[jimboton]

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

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

Yeah, this. Yet in many reviews I saw that sentiment expressed as a matter of fact, like everyone knows you can easily make a worthy game nowadays based on 8 or 16 bit sensibilities but the period 1996-2002 has to be considered strictly off-limits, the Dark Ages of game development or something.

I find this view slightly ridiculous.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I haven't played it, but it seems like a lot of the complaints had to do with the game's camera. The way we control and deal with cameras in third-person games has changed a lot (for the better) since the N64.

Yeah that's the only place I feel like this complaint makes sense, the same way I don't think old FPS are as good as newer ones because they hadn't figured out console controls or you didn't have free look on PC. Replaying Beyond Good and Evil I was annoyed by the camera in a way I couldn't remember from any third-person game in recent memory, which probably speaks to on average how much better cameras are in games now than in the 90s.

 

[GamerJM]

Larger game worlds no longer being impressive, and becoming the norm. Back in the N64 days, stuff like Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie were novel in that they provided game worlds that consoles like say the Saturn flat out struggled to approximate at all. Nowadays we have shit like Grand Theft Auto V...

This makes some sense, but I really find it hard to believe that scope was the sole reason these games were so impressive. If you go back and actually read a lot of their appraisal that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case.

Oversaturation.

Mario, Banjo, Conker, Gex, Glover, Bubsy, Vexx, Chameleon Twist, Donkey Kong 64, Spyro, Crash, Etc.

We were drowning in mascot platformers - most pretty awful - and when there's so much to gorge on, you lose your appetite for that flavor and move on to something newer and fresher.

I remember when 2D fighters fell out of favor to 3D ones too. Two decades later and 2D style is acceptable again, but for a long time it was frowned upon to be a 2D fighter, and there were so, so many of them at their peak.

This makes more sense, I suppose, but it's been two decades.

 

[Yoshi]

The modern open world action game has sort of replaced the platformer collectathon. What is GTA but a collectathon with mini games?

That's an interesting question, considering I consider collectathons my favourite genre, Banjo among my top ten games of all times, and GTA5 to be atrocious shit that is pure torture with it's abysmal mission design and unchallenging sandbox gameplay .

But to be less polemic (though I really, really despise GTA5, I consider it the worst experience I ever had with a game and I regularly review games, including the likes of Farming Simulator or Tenkai Knights), GTA is not a collectathon and if you consider it as one, it is a bad one. First of all it does not offer the platforming gameplay, which is a significant deviation from collectathon gameplay. Then, the game lacks any kind of focussed design density. The game is filled with content that detached from the rest of the content, offering, most of the time, no mechanical challenge whatsoever. There is no subtle guidance through collectibles (which is what makes collectathons!), but a rather in-your-face-minimap guidance. Heck, the main game content consists to about 50% of following some GPS lines around at any speed you want. There are only two similarities between GTA and Banjo:
- Both games have an open world approach
- Both games offer content that deviates from the core mechanics (like e.g. minigolf in GTA or the crocodile minigame in Banjo-Kazooie)

 

[SirClinksAlot]

I feel like many people don't realize this game was funded by fans of the genre. They asked for a BK spiritual successor and gave their money for a game exactly like this. The game was created for the backers first and foremost.

Well sure, but they are also selling it to the general public. Its not surprising the reviews are mixed. Backers need to get over that other people dont like this type of game anymore.

 

[Hilarion]

People and media change, anachronisms for their own sake are... against our pursuit of what is to come, rather than what we have left behind.

Why is what is to come inherently more valuable or worthy than what we left behind? Half of my favorite movies are from the 1930s, a half-century before I was born, and I would vigorously argue with anyone who said that cinema today is better than cinema then. Different, absolutely.

I fail to see how gaming today is an improvement over gaming 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. Different, yes, but better? No.

 

[richard4481]

Reviews are just opinions, those 3 reviews may be from people who really didn't like Banjo-Kazooie when it first released (or never even played it, which is just as likely a scenario), so obviously they'd never like a re-imagined version of that game.

People put way too much stock into others peoples opinion of a game, everything I've read thus far has been Yooka-Laylee was backed as Banjo 3, and it's exactly that. So job done, let's all enjoy it.

 

[Steveo]

Yeah, this. Yet in many reviews I saw that sentiment expressed as a matter of fact, like everyone knows you can easily make a worthy game nowadays based on 8 or 16 bit sensibilities but the period 1996-2002 has to be considered strictly off-limits, the Dark Ages of game development or something.

I find this view slightly ridiculous.

Most games from that era never played well. My first console was the NES, had an 2600, SNES, etc... I was also there for the PS1/SS/N64, and even for their time a lot of those games had glaring flaws, and looked very ugly.

Out of all the generations of video games that era holds up the worst.

You had a bad combination of developers trying to understand what did and didn't work in a 3D space, and hardware that was woefully underpowered to produce good looking 3d games at a smooth frame rate.

 

[Synth]

This makes some sense, but I really find it hard to believe that scope was the sole reason these games were so impressive. If you go back and actually read a lot of their appraisal that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case.

Nah, it's not the only reason... but it'd probably surprise you how large a group it would account for. Like example, I fucking love arcade racers to this day (Daytona USA is imo the best racer ever, and would sit in my overall top 5 games of all time), however there's was a very clear pre and post Gran Turismo for the genre. At that point, someone that would have otherwise worshipped Sega Rally for providing them with the most believable racing experience, would from now on likely deride any racer even remotely like it.

For some of us, the core concepts of the subgenre was what we wanted, and still want... for others, it was just a convenient overlap until technology finally realised what they really wanted all along.

 

[Wozman23]

What does that even mean?

Just because one dislikes a game doesn't suddenly mean "critics" are some odd separate section of people. A "critic" is a player who's writing about their impressions of a game, No different from a person writing what they liked or disliked in an OT, except they have a louder voice and larger audience

A review not liking a game doesn't mean it's a critic vs fan thing. It means it's a "this person didn't enjoy this game" thing

A agree, which is why I care little about reviews and follow my own intuition.

However, it's pretty commonplace to read a review that totally misses the mark. In many cases, I've seen reviews that complain about fundamental elements of the game or genre that most fans would enjoy.

I know I'm beating a dead horse snake, but Snake Pass is once again a great example. Many of the complaints about it come from the controls (as well as camera which is still an issue with the genre). It's a game that takes a while to grasp. Some people were so off-put by the first few levels, but had they stuck around to learn the nuance of the mechanics, they might have discovered just how amazing the controls are once you learn how to use them. It's really quite impressive how well you can control such an unwieldy beast. To me, the controls are the primary feature that makes the game unique and the reason I think it is one of the best platformers ever. Others basically said, 'I don't understand,' and gave up.

I don't know how a lot of the big publications work, but often times it seems as if reviewers are given games outside of their wheelhouse. We all have preferences and we're all subjective. As interested as you are in Rain World, I know it's not the game for me. But if I worked in gaming journalism I may be assigned to review it, and my review, which mirrored my level of enjoyment, would skew far lower than yours. No different that if you asked me to review a pop album instead of a rock album.

Look at that foolish DOOM video (from IGN I believe) where the streamer didn't even understand how to control a first person shooter. That type of ineptitude breeds a negative view of critics, whether it was the critic's fault or not.

If anything, I think reviews should seek to be less objective. I'd take more stock in what a person was saying if I felt we shared similar interests. I used to respect what Adam Sessler would say, because I felt like he an I had very similar interests.

In the case of Yooka-Laylee, you should preface your review with whether or not you like collectathons or whether or not you were looking forward to it, because with a negative mindset towards such games so prevalent, personal information like that can really help in niche situations like these. They can help establish credibility that the game may just be a bad collectathon, or dispel the notion that the reviewer was simply out of touch.

 

[Garlador]

This makes more sense, I suppose, but it's been two decades.

Which is also why it was a huge success on Kickstarter, but also why it was on Kickstarter in the first place.

Players who longed for it threw money their way, but a platformer by some of the greatest game developers alive today was not accepted by big publishers so they HAD to ask fans directly.

The industry, as a whole, doesn't want collectathon games and good platformers are a rarity. It's no longer seen as popular, acceptable, or a safe investment. Not when you have games that are so much "bigger" and bursting with "features". Where's the set-pieces? Where's the QTEs? Where's the horde mode? Where's the micro-transactions? Where's the social media tie-in app? This game and genre is just so... so... SIMPLE!

How can you expect me to have fun when the game's idea of fun is "find the hidden shiny thing"? I played the Last of Us, dammit! Where's the pathos?!

 

[Mattenth]

A large part of Banjo-Kazooie's difficulty was the controller, the controls, the camera, etc. Over the last ~20 years, the industry made a lot of progress on these fronts.

I'm looking forward to Yooka-Laylee and am happy with its review scores, but I'm also worried that it's just a series of ~100 minigames that are each individually too easy.

For a full 3D platformer revival, I think we're going to need to see:

• Stronger narratives
• A little more challenging gameplay
• A renewed sense of discovery / adaptive world

I think Breath of the Wild is a great, great counter-example.

Is there really that much of a difference between Breath of the Wild and Yooka-Laylee? Especially when you take out the RPG elements?

Or what about Portal? Portal 2?

What I love about Yooka-Laylee and Banjo-Kazooie is its tone and joy. I love the casual puzzles that I can solve and unwind late at night.

I think to "get to the next level," we're going to need more than just that.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Larger game worlds no longer being impressive, and becoming the norm. Back in the N64 days, stuff like Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie were novel in that they provided game worlds that consoles like say the Saturn flat out struggled to approximate at all. Nowadays we have shit like Grand Theft Auto V...

It was also early enough in the development of 3D gaming that simply navigating a large, "open" world with competent movement mechanics was impressive and enjoyable in its own right. Simply put, getting from point A to B to collect a star/jiggy or traversing every inch of a level to get all 100 whatevers was compelling enough to carry a game, even if the intervening space contained nothing really interesting in a level design sense. That is no longer the case -- gamers take 3D traversal for granted, and so a game like this must feel really thin for someone who doesn't really value collecting for collecting's sake.

I'm still trying to figure out what camp I'm in. I want to be excited about YL, but I can't help feeling like collectathons are no longer for me.

 

[redcrayon]

As others have said, the style of game hasn't really been updated, as much as games that went in another direction but added a lot of conveniences/fixed problems

Like Uncharted isn't a 3D platformer like a Banjo or Yooka, but as a third person game with jumping it is a modern example to compare to (as insane as it might sound on paper)

I don't have a problem with games as time capsules but there's definitely things that have been solved/evolved as time has gone on

To be fair, I'd argue that, in the name of accessibility and everything-but-the-kitchen-sink game design, modern AAA games have added as many problems as they fixed. Examples such as open-world bloat, puzzles that are too simple and offer zero challenge and are thus pointless (Uncharted and Skyrim are prime examples here, with 'ancient' mysteries that a child could solve in under a minute), rpg elements not because they are necessary just because filling bars is addictive, huge game sizes meaning endless bugs and thus updates and patches, team sizes of hundreds meaning that sometimes character gets lost as the game is churned out, multiple genres merging into one template that is the game of all things to all people, whether it needs crafting, open world, XP bars etc or not.

All of that stuff is just as much a reason why I don't play many of them as why I stopped playing the endless cute platformers in the 90s- after a decade or so they all start to blend into each other.

I'm hesitantly curious about Yooka Laylee, because at least it isn't launching into a sea of 50-hour similar games.

 

[Synth]

It was also early enough in the development of 3D gaming that simply navigating a large, "open" world with competent movement mechanics was impressive and enjoyable in its own right. Simply put, getting from point A to B to collect a star/jiggy or traversing every inch of a level to get all 100 whatevers was compelling enough to carry a game, even if the intervening space contained nothing really interesting in a level design sense. That is no longer the case -- gamers take 3D traversal for granted, and so a game like this must feel really thin for someone who doesn't really value collecting for collecting's sake.

Yea, this too. I remember the first time I played Mario 64 at a store. I didn't even play a level... I was just running around the castle aimlessly, and I'd already convinced myself I was playing the best game ever created.

 

[EatinOlives]

"Collecting doodads is boring!"

*Looks at Breath of the Wild, and Red Dead Redemption, and Assassin's Creed, and GTA*

Lol