Sorry to say but this type of assumption gets under my skin just a tad. I personally grew up loving the genre and still enjoy Banjo and Kazooie, Conker, and other to this day, revisiting some from time to time. My disappointment with Yooka Laylee is its urge to keep all the problem issues some of these games had and just going with it instead of thinking how to maybe enhance the experience. Camera is only one element. Lack of enemy variety hurts it. Huge sparse levels on some worlds other worlds handle it better. Casino level and it's way overdone use of its coins/casino games for pages. Hub world confusion. Etc.
I rated the game a 7 out of 10 because it felt like such a great trip down memory lane but either retains issues these games always had or bring in some new ones. Still a fun time and they brought the genre back into today's market, which is a testament all in itself.
But these are not 'outdated' since even today's game lack enemy variety and have huge sparse levels. Breath of the Wild got flack for few enemy variety and sparse level is the number one complaint about today's open world games.
These are criticisms are fine, but they're not 'outdated' design if these problems still exist now.
Since very nearly the beginning of Super Mario Brothers, you've been able to beat Bowser and still skip probably more than 50% of the levels in Mario (warp areas in SMB1, warp whistle in SMB3). Anybody that wants to be a content tourist in CoD can turn the difficulty all the way down and run through the entire game. There's a whole series of CoD Pacifist videos where the players just charge through the game without killing anyone. CoD and Mario games aren't really as gated as you think they are.
I cannot fairly judge Yooka-Laylee but the numbers floated in the Polygon review don't sound all that appealing. 25 collectibles per level, spread across 5 levels? Can you honestly say that those are all main objectives? That poor ratio of collectibles:worlds is not an inherent mistake but I think demanding a high completion percentage probably is going wear players down.
How can I judge this on numbers alone? Maybe it is too much, but if the worlds are reasonably large and the main objectives are designed in a way that you don't need to traverse the whole behemoth of a level to get one of them, it can be totally fine. I mean, in Jak & Daxter you could argue that you also had 30 collectibles per world, which itself was split in three themed areas. Due to the world extension theme, there is potential for a proper usage of the world for 25 main objectives per world. I also don't see why it is important that a player who does not enjoy the game all too much sees the credits. If collecting the pagies is not fun enough to a player to get enough for the final battle, do you really think he will care all too much about a single boss and a sequence? Making all levels available quickly is a sufficient concession to "casual" playstyles I think.
No. I consider it a design flaw if I have to play the same levels multiple times to collect things just to unlock the next set of levels and progress through the game.
Prior games like Super Mario World handled it better in that finding secret exits led you to bonus levels. Secrets are a far more compelling reason to play than "go find five of these for another star."
It is not just playing the same level and a 2D game is a bad equivalence here (if anything, you'd have to take Yoshi's Island into consideration here anyway and that one is really strictly guarded). In a 2D game, you have one dimension less which is giving the developer the option to have a much more varied playing field, without too much redundancy. But even in a 2D game you can discuss this: Having 25 main objectives in a Mario level is overblown and leads to a lot of redundancies, but what about having 25 main objectives in a Super Metroid-like level? Seems much more reasonable, right?
I don't like that I'm forced to replay levels over and over just to progress. I wouldn't mind so much if it was to unlock optional content.
Hell, in every 2D Mario game you could find warp zones to skip areas you didn't want to play... (of course, that was more useful at the time, since you couldn't save your progress.)
I don't understand. The enjoyment comes from figuring out how to reach a star coin or overcoming the challenge before the flag pole, not the fact that you reached it. The star coin itself shouldn't offer a reward for collecting it other than make a satisfying animation and sound effect; the reward is the realization, the a-ha moment. If it feels like a chore to collect and doesn't offer meaningful insight, then it's just a bad collectible.
You need forced progression in games in order to ensure that players have understood a concept fully before moving on to the next, so that you can design an area with the assumption that the player knows the basics and thus can expand and iterate upon them, providing more complex variations of what came before. In BotW every shrine and dungeon was designed as if it was your first, becasue it could very well have been, which resulted in a flat experience.
Have you played Braid or The Witness?
BotW is like you're studying university courses but all you're doing is going from physics 101 to chemistry 101 to martial arts 101. I want a game to hone in on one aspect, start out basic like physics 101 then move on to physics 102 after I have a full grasp of the basics, and after that 103, ... etc until I graduate which is denoted by the ending. That's much more satisfying than mindlessly enjoying a game as content tourism.
This is the ending of Braid, a castle built by the individual blocks that represent each level in a game, an idea, and together they form the complete picture. You can't understand level 2 unless you fully grasp level 1, and that's how the game keeps building up your knowledge base until you see the big picture. Once you do the game ends.
...I feel that the 3D collectaton is still satisfactory and perfectly valid, when done propperly. I've been lately reading in this forum how outdated and dissapointing is playing the first Banjo-Kazooie nowadays, but I actually replay it pretty often and I find myself enjoying its variety, adventurous spirit and incredible pace just like twenty years ago. There is simply something pleasant in collecting things that make a funny noise and in cleaning of tokens a huge level full of them (again, when the pace is right and things are done propperly; I don't replay DK64 and Tooie that often because of that)....
Careful re the bolded. Encountered this a few times over the years - including with myself. It's REALLY easy to not see a game's issues because you are so familiar with it. A new player will find constant minor things grievances which you or i won't notice at all. We'll know how to control and manipulate it so well we'll just glaze through any/all issues. If there's any warning flag for someone defending a game it's "I've played it countless times and don't see any issues". Really hard to keep perspective when that's the case.
...I had heard of the iconic bird and bear ever since I was a child but never played Kazooie or Tooie. What further interested me in the series was a co-worker who had recently immigrated into Canada and got to know me through talking about retro games. We both spoke about games that we grew up in and mentioned tons of Rare games that he had played. He mentioned Banjo-Kazooie being a game that I had to play through and even recommended it to me as I had never played the game before. After two months, I managed to get Kazooie and Tooie and I'm now going through the games for the first time...
The best thing about the game is just how atmospheric the levels are: Treasure Trove Cove does an amazing job conveying relaxation with its choice of tropical colours and music
at least until you hit the water and Snacker comes for you
, Clanker's Cavern does great with giving the player a foreboding feeling, Freezeezy Peak with its Christmas theming, and Rusty Bucket Bay with its deterioration and oily waters. The only levels that I thought were meh were Bubblegloop Swamp and Gobi's Valley and even then, they were fun to play through. All I have left is to 100% Click Clock Wood and go through Gruntilda.
This is probably going to be controversial, but so far with just one level left to fully complete (Click Clock Wood), I love this game a lot more than I love Super Mario 64, and I think it's the superior game over SM64. The level design is top notch with Clanker's Cavern, Mad Monster Mansion, Rusty Bucket Bay, and Click Clock Wood amongst my favourite levels ever in a platforming game (granted, I don't play as many platforming games as I do Action-Adventure or RPGs). The stuff you can do within each level is interesting and enough to get me motivated to further collect jiggies and notes...
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.
I'm not sure if, "Rare knew this. This is why they made a terrible game that was inferior in every way to their previous efforts," is the best argument.
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 isn't an open world plateformer. It is linear in its design, making it more comparable to the 2D Mario Games. So Galaxy can't be compared to YL in that way. A better comparison would be Mario Sunshine.
Honestly, in regards to the whole "there's a reason collectathon platformers died!" thing, I think there's one thing some people might be overlooking: the Microsoft buyout
I think you're misplacing blame. Rare was already moving away from that style of game way before the Microsoft buy out. The only games that they have made that wouldn't have happened without the Microsoft buyout are the three Kinect games (though you could potentially see Rare doing similar stuff on the Wii, though I doubt it)
I don't think staying on a Nintendo console guarantees a Banjo Threeie, unless it was something that Nintendo themselves pushed for
I'm not sure if, "Rare knew this. This is why they made a terrible game that was inferior in every way to their previous efforts," is the best argument.
True but if the author makes a football manager simulator and the player complains that you don't play enough football, I think the author intent has to have SOME weight.
Yea, they are obviously limits to what's reasonable, but this wouldn't generally be very substantial. Expecting a game's genre to be another genre completely isn't reasonable, but disliking a game as a result of it being in that genre is imo. The odds of me playing a football management simulator and it reviewing well from my point of view aren't very high at all... but it makes far more sense for me to frame that as my general dislike of the genre, and that it likely also won't appeal to those like myself, rather than to suggest it shouldn't be a football management sim at all. Either way though, the resulting score would likely be the same... and if I were to go with the second approach, anyone with an interest in football management sims would be able to see my comment for being as silly as it is, and would disregard my review anyway.
The only real problem with all this in today's world, is that people likely wouldn't read my review in the first place, and only look at the score (or worse the metascore), ignoring all other context.
Up until last year I had written off collectable games that were so prevalent on the 90s. I played Grow Home last year and I suddenly realized I enjoyed 100%ing it. I'm not sure I can eloquently or specifically point to what makes Grow Home so different from a game like what YL is trying to emulate, but at face value I get that hesitant feeling it will lot be as satisfying as Grow Home was in how you play is how you collect. I'm also a suckered for good traversal and "feel" of a game. The rolling fast movement in YL looked really appealing though.
The casino world looked laughable in one video review I watched though.
I just found out about this game and all of this "drama" surrounding it's reviews today, seems most of the complaints are related to a genre and style that is "out of date" and has not "evolved" to this day and age.
But I have to wonder.... what about Doom 2016? Isn't that game reminiscent of the 1993 original and that era of "Doom clone" games? It certainly wasn't critiqued by it, it was very much praised for it.
I just don't get it, seems like a buch of shit from reviewers in all honesty but I haven't played the game so who knows.
What I do know is that I loved playing Banjo Kazooie and games like Donkey Kong 64 back in the day and I haven't played anything like those games since that era, I'll definitely look into Yooka Laylee now that it's on my radar and hopefully get the same experience I had when I played those games back in the day.
Bottom line for me after all of this is... If the game/genre is good then great! No need to reinvent the wheel, if it's fun it's fun! You don't see chess "evolve" to fit the current era, just as you see plenty of games in Steam going specifically for that "Doom clone" style of FPS, they do it with that specific intent because a lot of people find it appealing!
I think you're misplacing blame. Rare was already moving away from that style of game way before the Microsoft buy out. The only games that they have made that wouldn't have happened without the Microsoft buyout are the three Kinect games (though you could potentially see Rare doing similar stuff on the Wii, though I doubt it)
I don't think staying on a Nintendo console guarantees a Banjo Threeie, unless it was something that Nintendo themselves pushed for
I think Rare doing something in the vein of Wii Sports under Nintendo would have been super likely. Producing their own take on Nintendo's current offerings was a pretty consistent theme for their titles.
As for Banjo Threeie, I think the odds of that wouldn't have been great regardless tbh. What a lot of people fail to consider when they act as though the MS buyout robbed them of follow-ups to all the Rare N64 IP they grew up with is... that pretty much all that IP didn't exist the previous generation. Rare had a tendency to drop IP across generations regardless in favour of completely different IP. We know we'd have gotten Perfect Dark Zero still, but then what? Kameo was still happening, so Banjo was already likely to be ruled out for gen 6 either way. They probably still would have made Viva Pinata next, before being the studio that ended up working on "another fucking Donkey Kong" rather than Retro.
But I have to wonder.... what about Doom 2016? Aren't they exactly reminiscent of the 1995 era of "Doom clone" games? It certainly wasn't critiqued by it, it was very much praised by it.
Doom 2016 is created in the "spirit" of the original Doom. Mechanically it has almost nothing in common with it, and if anything plays closer to a modernised Quake game. Similarly, something like Outrun 2 was made in the spirit of the original Outrun, but drew from modern (at the time) influences like Daytona USA and Ridge Racer to create a take on the IP that didn't feel like the same game from 1986.
So in other words folks rabidly chase trends in spite of games still being good in other genres. Got it. Same as shoot em ups then. Nothing got worse, but people wanted to follow whatever was trendy in publishing.
I just found out about this game and all of this "drama" surrounding it's reviews today, seems most of the complaints are related to a genre and style of place that is "out of date" and has not "evolved" to this day and age.
But I have to wonder.... what about Doom 2016? Aren't they exactly reminiscent of the 1995 era of "Doom clone" games? It certainly wasn't critiqued by it, it was very much praised by it.
I just don't get it, seems like a buch of shit from reviewers in all honesty but I haven't played the game so who knows.
What I do know is that I loved playing Banjo Kazooie and games like Donkey Kong 64 back in the day and I haven't played anything like those games since that era, I'll definitely look into Yooka Laylee now that it's on my radar and hopefully get the same experience I had when I played those games back in the day.
Bottom line for me after all of this is... If the game/genre is good then great! No need to reinvent the wheel, if it's fun it's fun! You don't see chess "evolve" to fit the current era, just as you see plenty of games in Steam going specifically for that "Doom clone" style of FPS, they do it with that specific intent because a lot of people find it appealing!
But the very nature of that progression comes from gaining knowledge. Primitive Stone Age tools were great inventions for their time. Fire was a great invention for its time. The wheel probably made people shit their loincloths. But they really pale in comparison to alternating current, the smart phone, or the space shuttle.
I've always believed that as a whole, gaming is only getting better, just as is the advancement of society. Super Mario Bros. was a great platformer. But Miyamoto took the knowledge he gained from making it and made countless other better platformers. Sure, as with any bell curve, you're going to have bad games, average games, and great games, but overall, the ceiling is still being raised.
That's kind of the point of life: to be better than yesterday. That doesn't mean you're immune to failure though.
I disagree with the notion that things tend to improve over time, especially video games. Games in the NES era tended to be beatable in one sitting and were difficult and demanding to make up for it. This concept seems to have been abandoned, which I find very regrettable. I'd prefer an hourlong game that challenged me to play it 20 times to a 20 hour dragfest that Islogged through once. Games also abandoned abstract 240p pixel art which forces you to use your imaginiation for HD art that leaves me cold. Four track audio that used strong, distinctive melodies by necessity have been replaced by orchestral soundtracks that are incidental mood music that is instantly forgettable. I just don't see gaming today as superior in any real way.
How can I judge this on numbers alone? Maybe it is too much, but if the worlds are reasonably large and the main objectives are designed in a way that you don't need to traverse the whole behemoth of a level to get one of them, it can be totally fine. I mean, in Jak & Daxter you could argue that you also had 30 collectibles per world, which itself was split in three themed areas. Due to the world extension theme, there is potential for a proper usage of the world for 25 main objectives per world. I also don't see why it is important that a player who does not enjoy the game all too much sees the credits. If collecting the pagies is not fun enough to a player to get enough for the final battle, do you really think he will care all too much about a single boss and a sequence? Making all levels available quickly is a sufficient concession to "casual" playstyles I think.
We can debate whether or not such gating is good, but it's undeniably a dated practice and that's what reviewers seem to latch on to. What you gain from strict gating seems to be negligible, what you lose from it is pretty tangible. I always felt kinda cheated when I'd spent a few hours in every level and was ready to move on, only to be told I needed to go revisit them and find more stuff.
People get 100% of the objectives in levels they love, and 30% of the objectives in levels they dislike (or aren't good at). So when the player hits the hard progress gate, they're essentially being told to go back and do the things they weren't having very much fun or success with. My reaction to this was usually to just stop playing the game altogether. Did I care that much about a single boss battle or final level? Probably not, but to deny me the ending because I only got 65% of collectibles certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Some gating is fine, but when a player is ready to progress they shouldn't be locked out by collectibles. Of course this is impossible for a game designer to do, because everyone's sense of progression and fair gating is incredibly different. I suspect that's why this form of progression was eventually dropped.....you can't please everybody, so just give up.
But this gating hasn't been given up. In Assassin's Creed you need to complete all main missions to get to the end, in each and every game, for instance. Why would that be different if the main objective is rewarded with a collectible? Does this make a main objective less acceptable? If a game has not a lot going on in terms of story and has multiple objectives per world, it is quite natural to use collectibles to signify completion of these objectives, but that part is not much different from other mission completion markers in other games. The other kind of collectible, the small ones showing the main paths (here: Quills) are quite significant to the collectathon subgenre, but I actually haven't head much complaining about that in Yooka-Laylee.
But this gating hasn't been given up. In Assassin's Creed you need to complete all main missions to get to the end, in each and every game, for instance. Why would that be different if the main objective is rewarded with a collectible? Does this make a main objective less acceptable? If a game has not a lot going on in terms of story and has multiple objectives per world, it is quite natural to use collectibles to signify completion of these objectives, but that part is not much different from other mission completion markers in other games. The other kind of collectible, the small ones showing the main paths (here: Quills) are quite significant to the collectathon subgenre, but I actually haven't head much complaining about that in Yooka-Laylee.
Sure, but you're being way too reductive. Every game can be boiled down to complete a task to get to the end. The difference is that Assassin's Creed is so mechanically and narratively dense in a modern way.
Snake Pass and Grow Home are two games that evoke that feeling of old collectathon platformers, but no one criticised them for feeling old because they bring a modern take to them. They use physics in the movement and in the overall world in new interesting ways
YL has barely evolved from the hardware limitations of twenty years ago (mechanically obviously, not visually) which makes it feel older in a way that other modern platformers with similar level design and progression just don't
But this gating hasn't been given up. In Assassin's Creed you need to complete all main missions to get to the end, in each and every game, for instance. Why would that be different if the main objective is rewarded with a collectible? Does this make a main objective less acceptable?
I think people view unique, scripted story missions differently than just a collectible in some different corner of a map. Being told I need to complete a mission to progress just feels different than being told I need to go back to levels I've already spent hours in and find more stuff. As with Call of Duty, if I'm having trouble with a campaign mission, I just turn the difficulty down and plow through it. Before the final chapter of Assassin's Creed, I am not told I need to revisit Mission 4 to find a collectible.
To be fair, I haven't finished an Assassin's Creed game in like a decade, and a look at Trophy statistics shows that probably most players don't even make it halfway through most Ubisoft campaigns. It's difficult to say whether that's a problem with gating, or if people just find their fun doing sidemissions and general world-exploration. There's a half-dozen varied ways for people to express themselves in Ubisoft's open world and that's part of the appeal. Don't like the gated campaign? Go do all these other activities that aren't gated.
A 90's era platformer doesn't really offer people much else to do once they've had their progression locked.
I do think the complaint that "I have to play the game to beat the game" is sort of funny though. Every 3D Mario game outside maybe 3D World requires you to replay levels multiple times before you could move on. SM64 and Sunshine you had to collect stars and shines before you could unlock new courses.
Sure, but you're being way too reductive. Every game can be boiled down to complete a task to get to the end. The difference is that Assassin's Creed is so mechanically and narratively dense in a modern way.
Snake Pass and Grow Home are two games that evoke that feeling of old collectathon platformers, but now one criticised them for feeling old because they bring a modern take to them. They use physics in the movement and in the overall world in new interesting ways
YL has barely evolved from the hardware limitations of twenty years ago (mechanically obviously, not visually) which makes it feel older in a way that other modern platformers with similar level design and progression just don't
I have no idea what a modern Banjo looks like. I think modernising a platformer from that era is an incredibly hard thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that Mario is really the only game to successfully do it
Based on what I'm reading in the OPs quotes I think this is a problem of people confusing the validity of the game's style with two items: personal taste and the execution of the game.
As far as the first point goes I'm not able to imagine ANY genre that isn't worth making from a creative perspective. There are certainly games that are more popular or more accessible than others, but I don't think there is a type of game that is inherently unworthy of being made. Would they say the same thing about a book or movie genre? What about animation? Have we "evolved" beyond hand drawn 2D animation and should only be using CG now? What about art? Aren't artists allowed to create whatever they want, no matter how big the audience might be? Is there a style of painting that's off limits because we're so much more evolved? I'm having an issue entertaining the notion and it seems like a bizarre claim for someone to make if they've thought about games for more than a passing moment. I'm curious if someone has a different perspective about this and genuinely believes that a style of game should NOT be made from a creative standpoint.
The second point is how well the creators executed on their ideas. Based on what I read it seems like the majority of the objective criticisms stem from performance or technical issues. If you make an open world game that barely runs, that's a problem with the execution and not the concept of an open world game. If you build a 3D game and then have a ton of camera issues that is a problem with how well you executed the camera, not a reason to never make a 3D game.
Beyond those two issues are more subjective items that really just come down to the individual. Some people like collecting a ton of things, some people prefer just a few. Some people love retraversal, some people prefer running through an area just once. It's fine that we all have different tastes, but we should also be mindful that just because we like or don't like something doesn't somehow make it more or less worthy of being made.
From a high level view Yooka-Laylee is a game that focuses on exploring areas and collecting items/abilities that unlock more areas. Nothing about that sounds inherently archaic or unworthy. It's fine to discuss what we like and don't like about the way a game studio realized their vision, but we should accurately critique the execution of the ideas and not resort to broad, subjective judgement claims.
I have no idea what a modern Banjo looks like. I think modernising a platformer from that era is an incredibly hard thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that Mario is really the only game to successfully do it
That's the thing. Reviewers say 'outdated' design, yet gives no real examples outside the camera. All the other complains can be found in modern games, so these as industry's issues and not issues that were left behind in the 90s. Even then, the camera wasn't really fixed until Mario Galaxy, a game that came out in 2007. So this particular up is only ten years old.
As a reviewer, gives examples of an outdated design and name the games that are the benchmarks for the modern design and how they do it better.
Snake Pass and Grow Home are two games that evoke that feeling of old collectathon platformers, but no one criticised them for feeling old because they bring a modern take to them. They use physics in the movement and in the overall world in new interesting ways.
They don't evoke that feeling at all. Snake Pass is an extremely basic game once you get beyond the initial "wow these controls are wacky!" aspect. No characters to meet, no gameplay variety, just slither around 15 levels collecting various objects that serve no purpose other than to be collected. I haven't played Grow Home in a while but I seem to recall that also being a "the character handles strangely and that's the main hook" type of game. They're both good games but they're closer to Octodad or Surgeon Simulator than Banjo.
That's the thing. Reviewers say 'outdated' design, yet gives no real examples outside the camera. All the other complains can be found in modern games, so these as industry's issues and not issues that were left behind in the 90s. Even then, the camera wasn't really fixed until Mario Galaxy, a game that came out in 2007. So this particular up is only ten years old.
As a reviewer, gives examples of an outdated design and name the games that are the benchmarks for the modern design and how they do it better.
I do think the complaint that "I have to play the game to beat the game" is sort of funny though. Every 3D Mario game outside maybe 3D World requires you to replay levels multiple times before you could move on. SM64 and Sunshine you had to collect stars and shines before you could unlock new courses.
It'll be interesting to see the player response to this rather than critical. I changed my kickstarter reward to a Switch code so hopefully by then the camera patch is in effect.
I'm not sure if, "Rare knew this. This is why they made a terrible game that was inferior in every way to their previous efforts," is the best argument.
luckily for you nintendo has been making and evolving the genre since those days, and if you've missed them for 20 years there will be a huge backlog for you to play.
As far as I remember, Galaxy gave you no control of the camera. I remember since people here were against the idea since an auto-camera up to that point kinda sucked.
They don't evoke that feeling at all. Snake Pass is an extremely basic game once you get beyond the initial "wow these controls are wacky!" aspect. No characters to meet, no gameplay variety, just slither around 15 levels collecting various objects that serve no purpose other than to be collected. I haven't played Grow Home in a while but I seem to recall that also being a "the character handles strangely and that's the main hook" type of game. They're both good games but they're closer to Octodad or Surgeon Simulator than Banjo.
You honestly cant see anything in Grow Home and Snake Pass that might remind someone of playing a 3D platformer despite not matching a game in the genre 1:1, but you can somehow manage it just fine when theyre being compared to Surgeon Simulator - a game where the only thing they share is having atypical controls? For fucking real my dude?
What does modern mean for the early 3D platformers? Is Assassin's Creed the modernized version of 3D collect-a-thons? When reviewers say modernize, do they mean waypoints and map icons? Do they want more straight forward levels like Galaxy or 3D World?
I always find it funny that the same people who write off Collectathon platformers like YL have huge hours in modern games that have greater bloat.
Not to throw Horizon Zero Dawn under the bus. (Its a great game play it) but the amount of largely pointless collecting you do is staggering. Especially if you do the optional content. Worse still is that the challenge to getting to these area's is non existent.
In general i'm starting to feel like Platformer isnt really a genre. Its just a description of the degree of player control/difficulty of movement.
For instance.
If Mario is racing against an NPC to get a star isnt it a racing game level?
If Donkey Kong is riding an out of control minecart down a linear track isn't it a rythm game?
If Faith is jumping up a building unsure of where to go isnt it a puzzle game?
If Yooka and Leylee are attacking enemies isnt it just an overly simple beatem up?
Essentially isnt platform game about as useful a description as "Open World"
Edit: Gating progression with redundant collectables hasnt been dropped. Good luck opening up that new area in Mass Effect Andromeda without the required amount of collectibles, or going down that next mountain in Steep, or getting to that next section of Gravity Rush 2, or getting into Destiny's Wrath of the Machine raid. Even BotW requires you to constantly collect weapons, crafting items ect to progress.
I always find it funny that the same people who write off Collectathon platformers like YL have huge hours in modern games that have greater bloat.
Not to throw Horizon Zero Dawn under the bus. (Its a great game play it) but the amount of largely pointless collecting you do is staggering. Especially if you do the optional content. Worse still is that the challenge to getting to these area's is non existent.
In general i'm starting to feel like Platformer isnt really a genre. Its just a description of the degree of player control/difficulty of movement.
For instance.
If Mario is racing against an NPC to get a star isnt it a racing game level?
If Donkey Kong is riding an out of control minecart down a linear track isn't it a rythm game?
If Faith is jumping up a building unsure of where to go isnt it a puzzle game?
If Yooka and Leylee are attacking enemies isnt it just an overly simple beatem up?
Essentially isnt platform game about as useful a description as "Open World"
I am not sure about that. Platformer in general speaks of a genre of games that are skill based, usually around jumping or traveling around platforms hence the name.
However, Platformer is a very diverse genre. For example, although Mario and Mega Man are both platformers, they are very different to the point that you can't really compare them outside of their jumping physics. Another reason why it is silly to compare YL to Galaxy. Yeah, they're both platformers, but they set out to do different things and have different goals.
As for what makes a 'modern' game. To be blunt, that word means nothing. Is modern graphics, game design, character design, difficult, story? Do a game having voice acting atomically means it is modern and therefore better than a game that doesn't used voice work? Without context, modern means nothing and even then, it doesn't automatically make the game better since some would argue that some modern practice needs to go away.
Mario being good is almost a sure bet. If it will be the 'Greatest Mario Game of All Time' and will become the benchmark for 'modern' open-world 3D platform games, remains to be seen. Given Nintendo's track record, it is a strong possibility. But, I don't like saying something will automatically be great when nobody played the product.
I think nostalgia plays a big role in the excitement for Yooka-Laylee. For me personally, I held similar nostalgia when I heard Banjo-Kazooie would be playable again in Rare Replay. After the initial hour however I was left with a game I actually didn't really want to play. It's a big reason I'm not excited for Y-L.
To an extent. I posted a LTTP on the Banjo games (currently playing Tooie), and I thought they were fantastic platformers. If anything, I think it comes down to taste (which easily changes over time as more games evolve) more so than nostalgia.
It's infuriating that collecting things became the primary thing people associate with classic 3D platformers when that is likely the thing most fans look back on with the least nostalgia. It was an unfortunate side effect of many bad platformers copying a cheap way to pad game length because they couldn't think of any thing more interesting to do. In fact, that is probably what led to the death of the genre. When game after game focused on collecting x/100 blanks versus evolving the actual platforming, level design, movement abilities and progression is when people started getting sick of them.
I look back fondly on Banjo Kazooie and yea I collected all the shit in that game but I really only liked doing it the one time and then never again. What I liked most about it was the sense of progression from unlocking new moves and levels, it's just unfortunate they lock that behind collecting shit most of the time instead of defeating enemies, solving puzzles, or you know... platforming.
My hesitation to this game came after they showed the first gameplay and it looked like the tightness and fluidity of the movement was as afterthought to collecting knockoff jiggies. That and the degree to which this game straight up rips off the Banjo Kazooie IP doesn't sit right with me, regardless of the individuals making it. It looks like one of those Chinese knockoffs that isn't as good as the original.
That would rest on me agreeing that SM64 and BK are the same style of platformer, or that I even see BK as a platformer first and formost. Rare approch to 3d platformers has always been more "Adventure game first with a dash of platforming for traveling between mini-games." or the precursors to say AC.
You honestly cant see anything in Grow Home and Snake Pass that might remind someone of playing a 3D platformer despite not matching a game in the genre 1:1, but you can somehow manage it just fine when theyre being compared to Surgeon Simulator - a game where the only thing they share is having atypical controls? For fucking real my dude?
It makes more sense then suggesting "a modern take on old collectathon platformers" is a game where you can't jump and the items you can collect don't do anything.
i saw several videos showing yooka flying through rings to unlock pagie. really? come on. this has been done to death in so many games. couldnt they have created some new puzzles for this game?
As far as I remember, Galaxy gave you no control of the camera. I remember since people here were against the idea since an auto-camera up to that point kinda sucked.
What was 'modern' about Shovel Knight? It doesn't really do anything that a SNES game didn't do. The only thing 'retro' to the NES is the art style.
And again, other than the camera, what is outdated about YL and what modern platform does it better in a 3D world space. Give examples.
Yeah, they gave you very limited camera movement sometimes with the D-Pad. The vast majority of the time it was fine, by sometimes you wanted a bit of control.
My point was that Galaxy had camera refined because of the more closed nature of the design, along with the spherical worlds. Y-L I assume has a more user implemented camera?
Games like Tooie and DK64 ultimately took things too far and they basically play like the 100 coin missions in Mario 64 except even more tedious. To the point where players are just wandering around aimlessly and collecting useless collectibles until this is all the sub genre was known for. There was no substance with the exception of some charm here and there. Ultimately there is a reason as to why 3D platformers in the 6th gen changed drastically.
It'll be interesting to see the player response to this rather than critical. I changed my kickstarter reward to a Switch code so hopefully by then the camera patch is in effect.
There's a day one patch that does include some camera fixes, but I don't think it's known yet how fully it addresses the general complaints about the camera, nor if future patches will take care of any remaining issues.
