Except Mario 3D World was not that good. Solid enough but too safe and pretty boring after a run of similarly boring Mario games.
Odyssey has me excited precisely BECAUSE Mario has become inconsistent.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Yooka-Laylee: Games have evolved past this - in what way actually?
- Thread starter Yoshi
- Start date
Odyssey has me excited precisely BECAUSE Mario has become inconsistent.
I personally liked 3D far more than the Galaxy games. It was like sequel to Mario 2 and it had some great levels and made me actually jazz. And being calling it safe is a oversimplification since it perfected what 3D Land tried to do.
Nintendo's viewpoint was to make the camera in such a way that the players didn't have to think about it, which Galaxy largely did. It was more than Galaxy being closed off or spherical.
But if we want an example of a game that has platefomer elements in a 3D world space, I think Breath of the Wild is a good example. The camera is manual in that game, but you never suffer from camera screw, especially important since Breath of the Wild doesn't have auto-jump. Now, since jumping isn't the major focused on that game, maybe it doesn't necessarily transfer well into a game like YL, but my point is that camera in 3D being nearly flawless is relatively new. It wasn't perfected by the end of 90s. I mean, it took Sonic over a decade to get the camera right in their 3D games.
3D Mario has been consistently good where are you coming from with that statement.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
That doesn't affect the reviewers though. Just cuz 25000 people have bad taste doesn't mean everyone does. It shouldn't get a free pass based on "these specific backers wanted this game!!"
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Oh please
daTRUballin
Member
I'm not sure how I feel about this myself. On one hand, I do agree with TheDinoman about the Microsoft buyout sort of effecting the collectathon genre in some ways. But on the other hand, I do agree that Rare seemed to be largely moving on from that type of game back in the Gamecube days. Plus Rare does tend to focus more on new IPs.
In fact, I've made a couple threads on this subject before. Apart from Star Fox Adventures, we know that Rare had 6 other GC games in development: Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Donkey Kong Racing, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Your Garden (which was Viva Piñata before it was called Viva Piñata), and Quest (which was a new IP they were working on that never released).
Out of all those unreleased GC games, most were new IP, with only PDZ and DKR being returning franchises. And even then, only PDZ was a returning Rare franchise specifically. There was apparently no Banjo or Conker game in development for the GC at the time of buyout, for instance.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
Refute my statement or go elsewhere bud.
A game developed in part because x amount of people were feeling nostalgic doesn't suddenly get the benefit of time machine reviewing.
Sparrowhawk
Member
Honestly, all 3D Mario games have been fantastic.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Im kinda oh please at the, people prefer bad games. Just because reviews are yall god doesnt mean that people prefer a bad game. I aint gotta refute nothing you said it was boujee.
Thats what I do not understand. What is the alternative or what were they expecting or examples
To be fair, that is their opinion. People who loved Mario 64 and Sunshine wouldn't necessary liked the more linear design of Galaxy, 3D Land, and World.
But overall, I think most people can agree that even the worst Mario game is at least good and you will get a solid game, even if it isn't your cup of tea.
Jawbreaker
Member
Yeah, I have to agree (outside of 3D Land, though that may change when it's perfect on Citra). I'm someone who loved Sunshine and thinks 3D World is the best game on the Wii U outside of Breath of the Wild.
Rats Off To Ya
Banned
For real. Like, opinions and all that, but if you ask me 3D Mario is basically the most reliable thing in the entire medium of video games.
TheProphet
Banned
the game is outdated because it re-uses puzzles that have been done to death in these types of games, not because of the level design.
when puzzles arent fun to solve, the game isnt fun to play. simple as that.
once people play the game for themselves, theyll understand.
when puzzles arent fun to solve, the game isnt fun to play. simple as that.
once people play the game for themselves, theyll understand.
But that isn't 'outdated' design since games still have that problem today. Very few games have innovated puzzles. So that is just bad/repetitive design.
Schopenhauerian
Member
What Rare would or would not have done if they stayed with Nintendo is certainly an interesting question, though the reason that I personally quoted TheDinoman earlier (in a previous post) was due to my agreement with an entirely different claim he made: that Kazooie-type games (as distinct from DK64-type or Tooie-type games) could have continued to find success and an audience, if (1) Rare had been willing and able to continue to make them, and (2) Rare had been able to continue to release them on Nintendo platforms:
D.Lo
Member
I haven't played it yet (will get it on Switch), but it does annoy me when people cannot judge a game based on the criteria of what it set out to do.
Personally I think turn based RPGs are something that should have been moved on from. the concept was created because MSX/Famicom couldn't do grand battles well, so they were abstracted to menus. It seems insane to me to still have dice-roll board games style combat played from menus in a game in 2017.
However, if I were reviewing an RPG I would not take out my dislike of the long-term survival of the concept on that particular game. It gets judged based on how successfully it fulfils its concept, as well as quality, production etc. My personal preference may take a point off the score, but it wouldn't frame the entire review as 'the genre concept of this game is bad'. Buyers know what they're getting into if they buy a JRPG, all they need to know is if it is a good JRPG.
It seems reviewers have managed to handle their reviews of 8-bit retro design games? Nobody says 'Shovel Knight is shit, it has worse graphics than Yoshi's Woolly World, 2/10' So why not an N64 style platformer? It really looks like Yooku has achieved exactly what it set out to do, with no major issues.
Personally I think turn based RPGs are something that should have been moved on from. the concept was created because MSX/Famicom couldn't do grand battles well, so they were abstracted to menus. It seems insane to me to still have dice-roll board games style combat played from menus in a game in 2017.
However, if I were reviewing an RPG I would not take out my dislike of the long-term survival of the concept on that particular game. It gets judged based on how successfully it fulfils its concept, as well as quality, production etc. My personal preference may take a point off the score, but it wouldn't frame the entire review as 'the genre concept of this game is bad'. Buyers know what they're getting into if they buy a JRPG, all they need to know is if it is a good JRPG.
It seems reviewers have managed to handle their reviews of 8-bit retro design games? Nobody says 'Shovel Knight is shit, it has worse graphics than Yoshi's Woolly World, 2/10' So why not an N64 style platformer? It really looks like Yooku has achieved exactly what it set out to do, with no major issues.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
I think this is sttaight and to the point. I also think classic JRPGs became dominent and quickly fell out of prominence for the same reason. They were a way to allow players to experience 3d worlds without having to deal with things like controls and camera.
I don't think a 3d exploration platformer like Banjo is inherently bad or dead however. You just have to look at and judge the core appeal. These kinds of games are basically 3D Metroid light. 3D Action adventure games where you jump through obstacles, complete varied objectives, explore, experiment, gain new powers and reach new areas set inside bright varied colorful worlds. Heavy emphasis on jumping. I don't see a reason why you can't make a game like that and update and distill it's core appeal while updating it.
You just can't throw 100 feathers on top of a road, expect players to grab all of them and call it "content" though.
Whether YL did that, I don't know and we won't really know until we get our hands on it.
Tarextherex
Banned
Smfh at every single post putting Tooie in the same basket than DK64. That game is not as good/can be pretty tedious not only due to the coloured bananas but also because the golden ones were often hidden besides repetitive minigames and very simple locks, the level design was simply not as good notably due to the lack of distinct points of interest(that's what Yooka Laylee looks like). Tooie is far from that, it actually has much less collectables: there's notably less notes and you don't need to get them all in one go, something that could actually be quite tedious in some of Kazooie's later levels.
I can understand preferring its predecessor over it but saying it's due to a lack of substance is simply wrong, if anything it has too much substance. Tooie is a game where the levels are as complex as Kazooie's later levels but right from the start. However they aren't even in the least bit empty, you don't feel like you wander aimlessly. The overwhelming part is that getting a single Jiggy is often behind a very elaborate task, sometimes involving interactions between different levels. It may not have as faster rewards as the first one, but it's still a blast for people preferring the adventuring aspect of the series. It's in no way related to any kind of bloating in games because even if you think it's too big for its own good, at least it offered actually meaningful content unlike the blatant, repetitive padding many games after it had.
You're basically saying that making deeply interactive worlds in a videogame was frowned upon from 6th gen onwards: this is wrong. Many people are waiting for a Mario that's like 64 and Sunshine(a game that was hurt for some of its repetitive or overly simple content, something Tooie doesn't have at all btw). 3D platformers simply stopped being trendy as there wasn't much examples for them to follow; Sunshine wasn't close to being as genre defining as Mario 64, Rare stopped making them once they were sold to Microsoft, the rest were either not in the same league or opted to follow trends from entirely different genres that were trending at the time. 7th gen onwards they simply weren't popular anymore aside from Mario that went in a different structure. Implying that Tooie is an example of bad design that represents needless collection in games is simply asinine. If anything, it's pretty much the dream that a lot of gamers currently have: huge, open worlds that are actually filled with meaningful content. 3D Mario may have been about linear platformers for the last decade or so but I'll be happy if Odyssey offers engaging levels and interactions that are even remotely close to Tooie's.
2Smashed4U
Banned
SlasherJPC
Banned
Yes your right these things are in some games today and yes they still are criticisms. I still think they are outdated and on BOTW case, the game took huge strides in being different otherwise.
Poltergust
Member
Well, let's try to apply this kind of thinking to Banjo-Kazooie.
How could Banjo-Kazooie be improved using the design principles and technology developed since the N64 era?
I can think of a few things. Better camera controls and improved frame rate are probably the two that stand out the most, but there are a few others (some of which being more subjective than others):
I can make arguments for the collectathon genre itself, but that is super subjective and defeats the point of having to evolve it. We don't want to make Banjo-Kazooie something it's not, and since we know Yooka-Laylee is part of that genre, we shouldn't treat it as being something it's not, either.
When I eventually get my hands on the game, I'm going to judge it by its own merits. If it accomplishes what it set out to do I will be satisfied. Even if it is just decent I'm sure the developers have learned a lot when making this game and I will have full confidence of them applying their knowledge for their next one.
How could Banjo-Kazooie be improved using the design principles and technology developed since the N64 era?
I can think of a few things. Better camera controls and improved frame rate are probably the two that stand out the most, but there are a few others (some of which being more subjective than others):
- Better implementation of physics - BoTW has proven than a robust physics system can increase engagement.
- A more forgiving death system - Not having to recollect notes, respawn at the room you just entered instead of back at the start, etc.
- Auto-save - I don't think Banjo-Kazooie had this.
- Lower Jiggy puzzle/note door thresholds - Only the ones necessary for completing the game; this way a casual player will only need to do a modest exploration of the levels to find all the Jiggys/notes they need. Also, this makes the game more friendly to speedrunning and general streaming due to it having a faster pace.
I can make arguments for the collectathon genre itself, but that is super subjective and defeats the point of having to evolve it. We don't want to make Banjo-Kazooie something it's not, and since we know Yooka-Laylee is part of that genre, we shouldn't treat it as being something it's not, either.
When I eventually get my hands on the game, I'm going to judge it by its own merits. If it accomplishes what it set out to do I will be satisfied. Even if it is just decent I'm sure the developers have learned a lot when making this game and I will have full confidence of them applying their knowledge for their next one.
Ways in which the 3D platformer evolved:
--You have to design the levels around the strengths and weaknesses of your camera system and controls. For most games this meant more linear levels that allowed the camera to stay fixed. Other games simply gave the user incredibly precise, granular camera controls, so they could always make sure they had the best angle that suited them (I personally think this is a lazy mistake).
--Allow for error. Part of the frustration with open-world platformers was that mistakes were punished kind of harshly. You could spend several minutes climbing up an obstacle, and then one screwup and you would fall all the way back down to the bottom. Then you'd have to take another few minutes just to get right back to where you were. Not fun. I think Mario Sunshine had the FLUDD device specifically to mitigate this issue, since it allowed you to recover from a flubbed jump.
--Don't gate content so hard. Let people skip the stuff they're having trouble with or not enjoying. Use bonus content to incentivize 100% collection, don't cut people off from progression if they have completed a reasonable amount of content.
--Let people start playing near their objective. If a mission is in the extreme corner of the map, don't start them in the dead center of the map and make them walk all the way to it.
--You have to design the levels around the strengths and weaknesses of your camera system and controls. For most games this meant more linear levels that allowed the camera to stay fixed. Other games simply gave the user incredibly precise, granular camera controls, so they could always make sure they had the best angle that suited them (I personally think this is a lazy mistake).
--Allow for error. Part of the frustration with open-world platformers was that mistakes were punished kind of harshly. You could spend several minutes climbing up an obstacle, and then one screwup and you would fall all the way back down to the bottom. Then you'd have to take another few minutes just to get right back to where you were. Not fun. I think Mario Sunshine had the FLUDD device specifically to mitigate this issue, since it allowed you to recover from a flubbed jump.
--Don't gate content so hard. Let people skip the stuff they're having trouble with or not enjoying. Use bonus content to incentivize 100% collection, don't cut people off from progression if they have completed a reasonable amount of content.
--Let people start playing near their objective. If a mission is in the extreme corner of the map, don't start them in the dead center of the map and make them walk all the way to it.
I got my pre-order of the game today. It is not very good. The graphics and visual style looks impressive in most environments but that's about it.
It has a 68 out of 100 metacritic average right now. I was looking forward to it earlier but after playing it, I would not recommend this game at all.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/yooka-laylee
If you are expecting something fun like Super Mario Galaxy or Super Mario 3D World or even Super Mario 64, this is definitely not as good as any of those games.
I never did play Banjo-Kazooie.
The characters speak gibberish and the sound design becomes very grating to listen to.
Most of the tasks the game asks you to do are not fun.
The camera is definitely an issue even though you can somewhat refocus and recenter it, but the camera will sometimes hover wherever it wants to.
This is with patch 1.02 which is the newest patch.
My first hour of gameplay with Yooka Laylee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7a7IK64Ns0
The Retrox Arcade single/local multiplayer mini-games are not that interesting as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWk6K6wqSU
.
It has a 68 out of 100 metacritic average right now. I was looking forward to it earlier but after playing it, I would not recommend this game at all.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/yooka-laylee
If you are expecting something fun like Super Mario Galaxy or Super Mario 3D World or even Super Mario 64, this is definitely not as good as any of those games.
I never did play Banjo-Kazooie.
The characters speak gibberish and the sound design becomes very grating to listen to.
Most of the tasks the game asks you to do are not fun.
The camera is definitely an issue even though you can somewhat refocus and recenter it, but the camera will sometimes hover wherever it wants to.
This is with patch 1.02 which is the newest patch.
My first hour of gameplay with Yooka Laylee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7a7IK64Ns0
The Retrox Arcade single/local multiplayer mini-games are not that interesting as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWk6K6wqSU
.
Video games always have historical revisionism problem. Anything that caused sslight annoyance will be regarded as outdated without the proper argument to back up. Earlier games in a series will always be objectively worse because it lacks the improvement that the newe games has. People treat video games as disposable electronic goods, and they buy into it blindly.
Watching the footage you posted and it's reminding me a lot of Banjo. Thankfully that's what I was expecting.
TheProphet
Banned
the first world is better than the other worlds of the game. in fact, its the best world in the entire game
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Most of this has already been applied to the XLBA version of Banjo Kazooie (resolution increase, better fps, every note collected stays collected), and Banjo Tooie to an extent (deaths being less punishing). I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's a more primitive form of "auto"save through collecting jiggies or passing note doors. The only real problem is the camera, which sucks as Banjo Kazooie predates dual stick controls being the modern way to play games.
The one suggestion I don't really get is lowering the note door count for the sake of speedrunning and streaming. I just don't see why you have to design a game based on a niche group of gamers, when the idea is to resonate with as many people as possible. In terms of other justifications you mentioned, I think it also cheapens the reward for completing a level and lessens the effort required from the player in order to progress.
Schopenhauerian
Member
Just to clarify a bit, I actually do acknowledge and entirely agree with the distinctions youve made between Banjo-Tooie and DK64 (I did like Banjo-Tooie quite a bit better than DK64), and I likewise agree with Yoshis earlier descriptions (one / two) of what Tooie did well.
I do have a definite preference for Kazooie over Tooie, however, and it is admittedly based on that merely personal preference (which I do believe is shared somewhat widely, though I could certainly be wrong) that I made my earlier post, indicating I am quite confident that Kazooie-type games would have been successful (if they had somehow continued to be released on Nintendo platforms), while I am somewhat less confident that Tooie-type games would have been successful, and not at all confident that DK64-type games would have been successful.
Poltergust
Member
The speedrunning/streaming bit is just an added bonus to my overall point of making the game more accessible to general audiences. I feel that this would help a lot for this game in particular because you needed to find like ~90% of everything in order to beat the game (example: you need 810 notes to open the final mandatory note door. There are only 900 notes in the game).
Developers actually do take into account how "streamable" their game is nowadays, by the way.
I kind of get what reviewers are trying to convey. They are looking for something akin to DOOM last year. A game that was true to its roots but also updated the formula to appease today's gaming sensibilities (SP only). I realize that this is much easier to covey in a genre like FPS games.
I never said that designing interconnected worlds was frowned upon? But dumping the player into a game world and saying have at it collect things for the sake of collecting was being frowned upon. I admit that lumping Tooie and DK64 into the same basket was a bit unfair but the point was how the industry was getting sick of this genre at this point in time. Developers continued designing worlds but gave the player more meaningful objectives and content instead of just collectibles in the 6th generation.
Also i am one of those people who cant wait for Super Mario Odyssey since i was getting tired of 2D Mario and having it return to 64/Sunshine is incredibly exciting. Also i dont agree with what you said about Sunshine at all. Sunshine did not have "simple content" Arguably it had less content than 64 but the key difference was it was far more complex than it was in 64, blue coins aside of course. Every other mission in the game changed something in the level and every mission took longer than a minute to complete unlike in Mario 64. This is one aspect where 64 and Sunshine differ vastly. plus the controls were fined tuned to perfection at this point. Even Mario changed during the 6th gen to some degree. Sly,Ratchet and Jak and Daxter were all for better or worse much different platformers than their N64/PS1 counterparts.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
This is my only worry, looks to be a lot of love has went into their showpiece level, the other worlds don't look anywhere near as impressive.
Lowering the threshold for progression would make your game more appealing to streamers, and at the same time increase appeal for a wider audience. It's a win-win scenario.
I suppose there's some case to be made that Yooka-Laylee should be the Dark Souls of platformers. It should force its players to be experts to progress. I'm not sure if that's a good idea, given the already-shaky position that 3D collectathons are in.
Judging by the reviews.... Maybe it just didn't do it well. It is a crowd funded games and what this tells me is that to go down that route even if you meet your funding goals it just isn't enough to make a quality game if you're too ambitious, in this case a 3D platformer instead of 2D. Yooka-laylee is a fine title I'm sure but needed more time and support that only a publisher can give, if anything this makes me wary of Shenmue 3. Game has sky high expectations but how do they expect to meet them with only a tenth of the budget of the original game. I mean if it was 50 million I would be pretty confident since I imagine the original Shenmue wasn't managed very well.
Shadow_FFVI
Member
I'm curious to see how FF VII Remake reviews...
DieNgamers
Member
People bashing Tooie? Banjo Tooie may be the best platformer I ever played. Definitely not for the same reasons that make Mario games great, though, haha.
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
Banjo kazooie was a much better balanced game imo
DieNgamers
Member
It's more balanced, yes. I think it's the more "bold" and off-balance nature of Tooie that makes it a better game for me.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Does speedrunning really make the game more accessible? I mean, they're playing in a ultra-specific way that a good chunk of their viewers won't (assuming that said good chunk aren't speedrunners to begin with). And that's not mentioning that speedrunners are often seen by other speedrunners to learn more sequence breaks and more ways to complete a game in the fastest possible time. As for streaming, yes developers do take it into consideration, and I would argue that you're more likely to reach a lot more people through something like LPs rather than speedrunning.
As for your less threshold comment, considering you have 9 levels and 900 notes total, I can't see a scenario where you lessen the threshold, and not simultaneously incentivize the player to go for the barest of minimums in their playthroughs. Now you can argue that the player is free to play however they want, but with a game like BK that's focused on exploration, I think that's counterintuitive to its design. I'm not saying you need to 100-note everything, but give a player a challenge rather than dumb down the game.
Except I'm not saying that Yooka Laylee should be the Dark Souls of platformers at all, because that isn't what the Banjo series was about, so it is false dichotomy to say that in return to what you mentioned about lowering thresholds. If anything, I think Yooka-Laylee should be much closer to a Mario game in the sense of enabling the player to learn the ins and outs of the game, and then gradually begin to test their skill (whether that be exploration or platforming). It's part of why I loved playing Banjo Kazooie and Tooie in the past month.
As for your reasoning behind lowering thresholds, if Mario can test players on their platforming skill while also having a decent difficulty curve from beginning to end that will not alienate the player, then I see no reason why a Banjo-Kazooie game couldn't aim for a similar kind of design with the components it has. Lowering thresholds comes off as dumbing down the game because you don't expect the player to be able to handle some challenge.
You do realize 3D Mario games have that lower threshold though right? Banjo Kazooie requires you to collect about 90% of its jiggies and notes to face Gruntilda at the end, in comparison most 3D Marios only require you to collect around half of its Stars(greenstars in 3D World's case) to face the final Bowser.
Tye The Czar
Member
Judging from the reception and footage I've seen, (and this is just my own assumption and I might be wrong) Yooka-Laylee feels like Playtonic testing the waters to see how well an authentic N64 "Banjo" game gets received in the modern era.
I do look forward to picking it up in spite of the reviews, because I've always spent hours playing the originals.
That being said, I do hope that more patches are released to fix some of the minigame and flight controls.
I do look forward to picking it up in spite of the reviews, because I've always spent hours playing the originals.
That being said, I do hope that more patches are released to fix some of the minigame and flight controls.
Randomizer
Member
Super Mario Odyssey might get some bad reviews then, since it is a dated genre that the industry has moved on from. (Obviously exaggerating as Mario has many modern mechanics and design changes)
Shit like this is the reason that Nintendo is the only one putting out full priced 2D platformers. Apparently any game in that genre should be reserved for budget or downloadable release only.
Shit like this is the reason that Nintendo is the only one putting out full priced 2D platformers. Apparently any game in that genre should be reserved for budget or downloadable release only.
ShironRedshift
Member
I've been thinking about this, and I think part of the problem with collectathon platformers is that there's no real sense of player progression outside of the collectibles themselves. When I say progression, I mean specifically skill progression and mastery of the basic mechanics of the game and that's because there's nothing to really get better at in these games. You start them just running around, collecting shit and doing random tasks that are brought up and then forgotten about never to be seen about and you end them... just running around, collecting shit and doing more random tasks that are brought up once and then abandoned. That being the case, when you get to the end of the game, you're kind of just left with a lack of satisfaction because despite having made a lot of progress and accomplished what the game asked of you, you haven't actually really gotten better at anything or have any greater mastery of any of the controls or mechanics, because the game never really requires that, you know?
Like, in racing games, you get better at maintaining your speed and avoiding wiping out and shit. In FPS/third-person shooters, you get better at killing shit without getting killed yourself or even taking damage. In stealth games, you get better at avoiding being spotted even in increasingly more difficult situations. In non-colletathon 3D platformers, you get better at jumping from platform-to-platform in 3D environments without falling off or running into obstacles.
But in collectathon 3D platformers, what are you really getting better at exactly? What's that different at the end of the game, from the start? Because the focus isn't even on platforming and there barely is any (like, Banjo Kazooie has no real platforming of any particular note until Click Clock Woods, the last world in the game, while it introduces flight, a mechanic to entirely avoid it in Treasure Trove Cove, the second world), there just isn't much of a feeling that you've truly actually accomplished anything at the end since what core gameplay there is is pretty static (ignoring the constantly changing minigames which aren't meaningful because they're just there and gone, not giving players time to get attached or care about any particular one or have reason to get better at them) and the difficulty curve basically non-existent, which leaves the whole experience unsatisfying because "skill" is basically a non-factor. Either you get the basic gist or you don't. And that being the case and people naturally wanting a feeling of actually getting better at something, regardless of what that something is (whether it be third person shooter mechanics in the Ratchet and Clank games, focus on actual 3D platforming in the 3D Marios, or whatever), which the genre couldn't give them, is part of why it just died out. Maybe that's just me? But thinking about it, it's what comes to mind.
Like, the only thing to really get better at, is just doing the levels faster and faster and basically taking up speedrunning. But since these games themselves didn't particularly encourage that or give any incentive to play through the games multiple times, that wasn't enough and either they found different hooks or just kinda vanished. I dunno if I'm actually on to something or not with that, but thinking about it, it's what kinda makes sense to me.
And yeah, it's exactly like you said. It's not that I particularly cared that much about a particular level. But sometimes I just didn't feel like doing some stupid slide-level and just wanted to move on to other shit just for a change of pace, but couldn't because stuff was arbitrarily decided to just be "in my way" and stopped me from moving on until I did the stuff I wasn't interested in at all at the moment, which made much more likely to just put it down and stop playing for a while instead of keep playing. Just hated that shit. Fuck the 2D map in Galaxy 2. Shit was garbage.
And yeah, it's nothing like Assassin's Creed or whatever. Because in Assassin's Creed, at least they give you a story reason for whoever your supposed to take out or whatever your current objective is. In say SMG2, on the other hand, there's never any story justification for getting any individual Power Star in particular. Yeah, they say you have to get a specific number of Power Stars, but they never even begin to try to explain why certain Power Stars are more important than others and you have to get particular ones whether you want to or not, and why some are just magically "in your way" and some aren't. All of them seem equally important to each other and none of the individual worlds (aside from the boss levels, of course) have any real story connected or anything, but just due to the 2D map and shit, some of them you just have to do regardless of how many Power Stars you collected because they're just in your way regardless.
Like, when the game at least attempts to provide a story explanation for your current objective and why you're doing what you're doing, it's one thing. But when the game says you have to collect only a certain percent of this garbage, but some of the garbage is apparently more important than other garbage and you have to collect that garbage in particular but the game never explains why that garbage in particular is so special but you have to specifically collect it anyway or else you're just blocked out of progressing anyway? Yeah, that's just really, really frustrating when there's no reason for it being so special and you just wanting to move on because it's not interesting and the game doesn't give you any reason to think otherwise and you're still just content gated regardless. Bleck.
Like, in racing games, you get better at maintaining your speed and avoiding wiping out and shit. In FPS/third-person shooters, you get better at killing shit without getting killed yourself or even taking damage. In stealth games, you get better at avoiding being spotted even in increasingly more difficult situations. In non-colletathon 3D platformers, you get better at jumping from platform-to-platform in 3D environments without falling off or running into obstacles.
But in collectathon 3D platformers, what are you really getting better at exactly? What's that different at the end of the game, from the start? Because the focus isn't even on platforming and there barely is any (like, Banjo Kazooie has no real platforming of any particular note until Click Clock Woods, the last world in the game, while it introduces flight, a mechanic to entirely avoid it in Treasure Trove Cove, the second world), there just isn't much of a feeling that you've truly actually accomplished anything at the end since what core gameplay there is is pretty static (ignoring the constantly changing minigames which aren't meaningful because they're just there and gone, not giving players time to get attached or care about any particular one or have reason to get better at them) and the difficulty curve basically non-existent, which leaves the whole experience unsatisfying because "skill" is basically a non-factor. Either you get the basic gist or you don't. And that being the case and people naturally wanting a feeling of actually getting better at something, regardless of what that something is (whether it be third person shooter mechanics in the Ratchet and Clank games, focus on actual 3D platforming in the 3D Marios, or whatever), which the genre couldn't give them, is part of why it just died out. Maybe that's just me? But thinking about it, it's what comes to mind.
Like, the only thing to really get better at, is just doing the levels faster and faster and basically taking up speedrunning. But since these games themselves didn't particularly encourage that or give any incentive to play through the games multiple times, that wasn't enough and either they found different hooks or just kinda vanished. I dunno if I'm actually on to something or not with that, but thinking about it, it's what kinda makes sense to me.
Oh god, this was so me in Super Mario Galaxy 2. Like, okay, Starship Mario uses Power Stars as fuel, right? I got the in-game "justification" for why you needed X number of the things. But there were times I could see on the in-game map that I had enough Power Starts to give Starship Mario the "fuel" it needed to get to the next Bowser level. But yet even though I had enough "fuel" I still had to play through at least one mission on each of the planets that were somehow "in my way" anyway. Like, I don't know how it even makes sense for those stupid galaxies to even be in the way to begin with, but somehow, despite having the fuel I needed, they were just "in the way" anyway. I hated that shit.
And yeah, it's exactly like you said. It's not that I particularly cared that much about a particular level. But sometimes I just didn't feel like doing some stupid slide-level and just wanted to move on to other shit just for a change of pace, but couldn't because stuff was arbitrarily decided to just be "in my way" and stopped me from moving on until I did the stuff I wasn't interested in at all at the moment, which made much more likely to just put it down and stop playing for a while instead of keep playing. Just hated that shit. Fuck the 2D map in Galaxy 2. Shit was garbage.
And yeah, it's nothing like Assassin's Creed or whatever. Because in Assassin's Creed, at least they give you a story reason for whoever your supposed to take out or whatever your current objective is. In say SMG2, on the other hand, there's never any story justification for getting any individual Power Star in particular. Yeah, they say you have to get a specific number of Power Stars, but they never even begin to try to explain why certain Power Stars are more important than others and you have to get particular ones whether you want to or not, and why some are just magically "in your way" and some aren't. All of them seem equally important to each other and none of the individual worlds (aside from the boss levels, of course) have any real story connected or anything, but just due to the 2D map and shit, some of them you just have to do regardless of how many Power Stars you collected because they're just in your way regardless.
Like, when the game at least attempts to provide a story explanation for your current objective and why you're doing what you're doing, it's one thing. But when the game says you have to collect only a certain percent of this garbage, but some of the garbage is apparently more important than other garbage and you have to collect that garbage in particular but the game never explains why that garbage in particular is so special but you have to specifically collect it anyway or else you're just blocked out of progressing anyway? Yeah, that's just really, really frustrating when there's no reason for it being so special and you just wanting to move on because it's not interesting and the game doesn't give you any reason to think otherwise and you're still just content gated regardless. Bleck.
ScientificPizza
Banned
That's such a different thing tho
To continue this analogy:
Mini advertised it as a classic Mini Cooper, and you knew full well going in that it was intentionally "old fashioned" and faithful to the original.
Critiquing it based on it's lack of modern bells and whistles is asinine in this case.
daTRUballin
Member
Why does everybody keep assuming YL will be a bad game just because the critics say so? Play the game for yourselves when it comes out and form your own opinions. Don't just jump on the hate bandwagon and take others' opinions as facts.
Poltergust
Member
I think we're having a communication problem here. :<
Look, the speedrunning/streaming thing is completely tangential to my point, which is to make the game more accessible to everyone.
It also wouldn't be dumbing down the game at all. It wouldn't affect people who want to collect everything while allowing more people to reach the end. It's not counter-intuitive as long as a good amount of exploration is still required (because removing too many requirements would defeat the point of playing the game).
Let's take a look at Mario games. You do not have to go through 90% of the levels/tackle 90% of the objectives to beat any of those. Heck, in some games that threshold does not even pass 20% if you know what you're doing. The player should have the ultimate say over how they choose to play the game, even if that choice means they will skip levels. This is a philosophy that Nintendo has kept with them throughout the entirety of the series.
Over a normal course of play for a game like Banjo-Kazooie, I think asking players to experience ~60% of what the game has to offer would go over much better with players than making them go through 90% of it. Not everyone who plays a collectathon actually wants to collect literally everything. I think the challenge of collectathons should not be with the actual collecting but with the platforming/puzzle challenges associated with them, since that is where the actual gameplay lies and, therefore, the core system to keep a player engaged. In this sense, collectables are just the means to an end (the end being the actual end of the game).
I dunno... I'd probably tell most people not to buy a classic Mini Cooper today, if they wanted my honest opinion.
Those that truly want it specifically to be exactly a Mini Cooper are the people least likely to need a review from me.