Okay here's a better comparison. One evolved the designs from the early days. Another transplanted the design.
Okay here's a better comparison. One evolved the designs from the early days. Another transplanted the design.
Okay here's a better comparison. One evolved the designs from the early days. Another transplanted the design.
Sorry, but that's disingenuous, you are comparing a major-publisher funded AAA remake in a dedicated engine, exclusive to one platform to an effort of a <20 persons team on a minor budget using a general purpose engine for multiple platforms here. And the difference is not that the art design is worse in Yooka but that the production values are sky high in Ratchet.Also, not to harp on the art too much, but art design has come a long long way in the genre.
Presentation-wise, yes, it is similar, but gameplay-wise, it's night and day. Which is a good thing from my perspective, because I think DKC is rather weak and DKC TF is one of the best games ever made, but boy, are those very different games. The fluidity, the speed, the design approach to the levels, it's absolutely not the same and not feeling the same either.The heft of Donkey Kong games and character presentation are absolutely "like" the SNES series.
I'd argue the story and presentation of Jak & Daxter is actually weaker. Disregarding the disasters that were 2 & 3 for various reasons (including presentation, that's some Shadow the Edgehog shit right there), I do not agree that the more serious American-comic themed story of Jak 1 is superior to the whimsical British-humour style story of Banjo. Both stories are super simple, just that Jak takes itself serious, where Banjo (and Yooka, from what I have seen so far) is living off some crude and unique humour. Why would one appriach be superior to the other? You may prefer one of those approaches over the other, but neither is inherently superior. Also, let's take a look at the motivation for the collectibles.General flaws of adventure platforming from the 90s:
-Presentation of story and characters. Jak and Daxter showed you can tell a damn good story with a huge cast of characters in the context of a platformer. Also characters can be something more than one note. If they are just one note characters, you better make sure that is a damn good note and makes sense in context to the world.
-Relevance of side quests in the story. Everything you do in Ratchet and Jak has a purpose that feeds into the main narrative or characters. Side quests for the sake of sidequests is not enough. Players need a reason or a drive to do something and getting more collectibles or more of the same is not enough of a reason.
Honestly most of the things wrong with 90s platformers is giving the player a drive to do something. Being "wacky" isn't enough to carry a game anymore. In the same way CG films moved from "Madagascar" to "Toy Story 3", there just need to be more substance now that the luster of being a 3D game has gone.
Agreed I fixed it to be more representative. Used key art only to represent the original art design concepts better.One of those is a screenshot, the other is not.
This is more fair:
I totally agree with this, but I would also argue these are the furthest from the traditional Banjo designs.They definitely nailed the look of the some of the characters in Yooka-Laylee. I really like Trowzer, Rextro, Kartos and Dr. Puzz's designs.
Okay here's a better comparison. One evolved the designs from the early days. Another transplanted the design.
Fixed my posty to be more representative from a charcter design perspective.Sorry, but that's disingenuous, you are comparing a major-publisher funded AAA remake in a dedicated engine, exclusive to one platform to an effort of a <20 persons team on a minor budget using a general purpose engine for multiple platforms here. And the difference is not that the art design is worse in Yooka but that the production values are sky high in Ratchet.
I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but if someone had not played the SNES DK in years I bet they would say it plays like a DK game, albiet much better playing.Presentation-wise, yes, it is similar, but gameplay-wise, it's night and day. Which is a good thing from my perspective, because I think DKC is rather weak and DKC TF is one of the best games ever made, but boy, are those very different games. The fluidity, the speed, the design approach to the levels, it's absolutely not the same and not feeling the same either.
Ratchet may be a better example as it is a bit lighter. My point was not that Jak's story was darker, just that there was some substance. Even "super wacky modern kids show" like Gumball have something to say behind all the craziness. I just don't think you can create a story that is "crude and unique humor" without something behind it. Hell, Conker was crude as hell, but there was a definite through line with the plot and characters and tasks given.I'd argue the story and presentation of Jak & Daxter is actually weaker. Disregarding the disasters that were 2 & 3 for various reasons (including presentation, that's some Shadow the Edgehog shit right there), I do not agree that the more serious American-comic themed story of Jak 1 is superior to the whimsical British-humour style story of Banjo. Both stories are super simple, just that Jak takes itself serious, where Banjo (and Yooka, from what I have seen so far) is living off some crude and unique humour. Why would one appriach be superior to the other? You may prefer one of those approaches over the other, but neither is inherently superior. Also, let's take a look at the motivation for the collectibles.
Not going to argue too much on this one as I generally agree with your point. Although I think there is more context in the Jak collectibles than the Banjo, baring the jiggies. But I think that is a matter of personal preference.Jak's jiggys: Powering devices to reach new worlds
Banjo's jiggys: allow to solve jigsaw puzzles which open the gates to new worlds
Yooka's jiggys: pages to a magical book that allows to visit and change worlds
Jak's notes: They are valuable artifacts from a past civilisation, you can buy more power cells from them
Banjo's notes: They are magical and can open gates in Grunty's lair
Yooka's notes: After all books are gone, feathers, allowing to write new books, are particularly valuable, so they can be used as currency
Jak's Jinjos: No explanation, some random flies that give jiggys
Banjo's Jinjos: Captured by the evil witch, if you help a full group, they are thankful and give you a jiggy as a reward
Yooka's Jinjos: No explanation, just some monsters that, if you find all five in a world give you a Jiggy.
I really don't see the difference in explanation of the collectibles, if anything, Banjo gets the edge for explaining all three types of collectibles rather than just two.
The reviews seem pretty consistent, though, despite the split in terms of liking / disliking it: Nearly everyone agrees it's an accurate recreation of 90's era 3D mascot-driven platformers, capturing the things people liked about them but not adding much new. If you liked those games, you'll probably like it; if you didn't, you won't.This game isn't out yet so most ppl in this topic are projecting based on the opinions of others.
I'll revisit this after the 11th when most people can actually play the game.
Ratchet may be a better example as it is a bit lighter. My point was not that Jak's story was darker, just that there was some substance. Even "super wacky modern kids show" like Gumball have something to say behind all the craziness. I just don't think you can create a story that is "crude and unique humor" without something behind it. Hell, Conker was crude as hell, but there was a definite through line with the plot and characters and tasks given.
Easy Allies' review of Yooka-Laylee: 3 out of 5 stars which is below average on their scale. Total Biscuit even makes an appearance in their comments section.
- They say it harkens back to old platforming games that were made the style of Banjo-Kazooie or Donkey Kong 64 but it ends up being dull and uninspired
due to the level design being a laundry list of things to do with inconsistent quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuYNE5dKhQ
They also say other developers and older games have done what Yooka Laylee tries to do but better already.
Not every reviewer is going to address the game from a perspective of a nostalgic fan that may love the genre and backed the kickstarter. It's pretty understandable that those people are unimpressed with the game in general, possibly rate it poorly, and that's okay. It's the game it's fanbase wants, they shouldn't be preoccupied with how well someone else scores it if they have fun.
I don't expect rail shooters to score well, but that's okay, I still love them. I don't need other people to appreciate that.
For an example on another thing YL does that feels stuck in the past. The final boss. Yep... It's another one ofSome games still do this today. But for a game meant for a broad range of ages, it's extremely tougher the anything that comes before and you have to literally experiment to figure out how to avoid or dodge the moves till the end and hoping you survive long enough to learn the next tactic and not die on random luck until figuring it out. I've always disliked this kind of thing. As it's excruciatingly unfair. Yeah Bloodborne or Dark souls seem to love this element but those games are hard anyways and seems par for the course. It feels at odds here, as I've always felt with some platforming games and their final bosses.those really long, multiple phase, die and start all the way over from the beginning battles.
True, but that's the difference I'd say. Shovel Knight only LOOKS old, but it plays like a modern game. It's got all modern game features you'd expect. It is not, in fact, a true throw-back to 8-bit gaming, but rather a TRIBUTE to that era. Donkey Kong Returns and Tropical Freeze are fully modern games that take the template of the originals and bring it to the modern era, but they're not recreations of the original template.
I'd actually argue that Mega Man 9 and 10 are true throwbacks.
And what kind of score does Mega Man 10 have?
78 on Metacritic,
6.6 user score
It's brilliant at recapturing the spirit and magic of the NES games, almost exactly, and for those that want that, it's perfect, but it's not accessible or respectful for modern gaming conventions.
That's more the reception Yooka-Laylee has received.
This sounds like a complaint about a difficult spike. Also, the final boss in a Rare game is purposely made to be a 'final exam boss' to test everything your learned. A lot of gamers love that since it shows how much you've grown.
Most plateformers have laughably easy final bosses, looking at you Galaxy 2.
Except the final boss here feels like tedium. Not some test of all abilities. Actually you barely do anything with all your abilities here.
Easy Allies' review of Yooka-Laylee: 3 out of 5 stars which is below average on their scale. Total Biscuit even makes an appearance in their comments section.
- They say it harkens back to old platforming games that were made the style of Banjo-Kazooie or Donkey Kong 64 but it ends up being dull and uninspired
due to the level design being a laundry list of things to do with inconsistent quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuYNE5dKhQ
They also say other developers and older games have done what Yooka Laylee tries to do but better already.
This is what the backers wanted. They knew what they were getting. I'm kind of just done with all journalism.
I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm curious where the line is drawn.
Like, for instance, Dark Souls. Dark Souls is NOT for everyone. It's inaccessible, brutally difficult, often infuriatingly obtuse, has some serious technical issues (Blighttown, argh!), egregious grinding for better gear (drop Titanite Shards, damn you!), and has a ton of features that are downright annoying - by design - with little care or concern for your skill or respect for your time. You cannot play Dark Souls at your pace or your level; you have to adapt to the game on its terms, not yours.
And as popular as the series is, you'll find a person for every Dark Souls zealot who despises the game for these very reasons. You can't pause the game. The punishment for failure is too high for them. The game mechanics aren't clearly explained at times. Level navigation is at times atrocious (damn those balcony archers). There's important areas of the game hidden behind obtuse mechanics and poorly highlighted hidden walls. Important, essential gear can be half-way across the game-world and you'll only get vague hints to the location. So much of its plot and lore and even gameplay progression is buried in menus and item descriptions. It's not intuitive at all and so much of it seems designed by chance or randomness at times (how is anyone suppose to know Seath can't be killed the first time they encounter him?). Etc. Etc. For countless players, all of these issues are outright deal-breakers.
But most critics understand the game isn't TRYING to be accessible. Even the ones that struggle with it and get frustrated with it understand that it's by design and that what it's doing is masterful in execution for those that want this sort of challenge and game progression. Almost no critic is going to give it a 2/10, even if they have a bad time with it, because they understand that the fault was with them not grasping the mechanics in time or understanding they needed to approach the game differently than a traditional hack-n-slash adventure game or RPG. They rate the games for the intended audience, NOT the mainstream audience. Because, let's be honest, the average gamer struggles with Dark Souls and it took a long time for it to find its audience and grow from there after Demons's Souls (or, hell, the underrated King's Field franchise, which has receive a lot of retroative praise).
If I played Dark Souls and I hated my time with it (which I initially did) because it didn't play the way I wanted it to (which it didn't) and didn't explain itself to me well enough (also didn't) and I had to resort to walkthroughs and support forums and GAF members to help me understand what the hell I was doing (which I did), then does that mean my initial impression of the game as a sub-standard, stupid, unfair game that frustrated me more than rewarded me was incorrect?... or was this a case where after I approached the game with a new mindset, accepted what the developers were trying to teach me, and playing with a different approach, it was revealed to me as one of my favorite games of all time? Was the fault with the game, or with me?
This is what the backers wanted. They knew what they were getting.
This is what the backers wanted. They knew what they were getting. I'm kind of just done with all journalism.
It will only be podcasts and forums for me.
Yooka-Laylee is a rehash but Call of Duty is a haven of originality? Okay.
It's hard to argue that the game doesn't feel outdated when Banjo Kazooie was already outdated compared to the true evolution of platformers, Crash Bandicoot.
It's hard to argue that the game doesn't feel outdated when Banjo Kazooie was already outdated compared to the true evolution of platformers, Crash Bandicoot.
Jak's Jinjos: No explanation, some random flies that give jiggys
Yooka-Laylee is a rehash but Call of Duty is a haven of originality? Okay.
It's hard to argue that the game doesn't feel outdated when Banjo Kazooie was already outdated compared to the true evolution of platformers, Crash Bandicoot.
Look at CoD2. Then look at CoD4:MW. Then look at CoD:IW.
CoD may have a lot of releases as it iterates, but it's iterated a shitton more in even the last 5 years compared to what Yooka-Laylee has done. Hell, I'd argue CoD has changed more since the launch of the 360 than Mario has since the launch of the N64.
Haha, wtf. This is outrageous.
Haha, wtf. This is outrageous.
Is anyone else excited to see how their next game turns out?
I think after this game they'll have looked at the reviews and realized their shortcomings and come up with a better game next time. Who knows what genre it'll be either.
Or it could be DCEU in game form.
Gee, it's almost like character designs tend to evolve over time.
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.
Tell that to Grim Dawn and Diablo or countless RPGs. A game with loot is a game about collectibles.
Revolving around collectibles doesn't make a game bad or boring or obsolete. It's when the game itself is boring or bad or poorly designed that the focus on collectibles makes the overall game tedious and frustrating.
The scores are average, but no one was expecting Battlefield 1 or Uncharted 4 levels of gameplay depth...
Look at CoD2. Then look at CoD4:MW. Then look at CoD:IW.
CoD may have a lot of releases as it iterates, but it's iterated a shitton more in even the last 5 years compared to what Yooka-Laylee has done. Hell, I'd argue CoD has changed more since the launch of the 360 than Mario has since the launch of the N64.
Cod 2 to Cod 4 is the only major leap. Outside the increased aesthetic flash the newer games have a base design near indentical to Cod 4 beyond a few new mechanics (that are frequently gimmicks more than anything else). FPS from 2007 to ~2015 were one of the most stagnant genres in gaming history, and that's before getting into the way that the series everyone ripped off was already relatively shallow mechanically compared to others in the genre even the year it came out (on top of being inherently limited by the modern military premise).
Also, I'd say calling the FPS genre one of the most stagnant in gaming history is a bit hyperbolic, especially in a thread regarding platformers. Just within the last year we've had Overwatch, Doom and Rainbow Six Siege. If you wanna talk stagnation, I'd be looking at stuff like the side-scrolling beat-em-up.
That's why I specifically cut off from a couple of years ago. Now, the genre is finally starting to move on and embrace more diverse design again.