-
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- Review Thread
- Thread starter FireSol
- Start date
If I was a professional reviewer I would be objective as possible. There certain genres of games I don't play personally like party games, MMO's and sports games etc. If I had to review an NFL game for my job I would give it a positive score if it was well made, played well and had good graphics. A review has to be useful to different kinds of people including fans of the genre. It would be unfair for me to knock the game with a bad review score simply because I dislike the sport.
I think at that point it needs to show that for someone who never plays those games that they can get into it and enjoy it within reason. You'd try to give the game a fair shake, maybe see if there's something you need to keep in mind as someone unfamiliar with the genre that'd make it enjoyable, and if you really can't get into it then perhaps it deserves a mediocre score for not being something people who normally don't play that can get into.
Can't say Im all that surprised about the mixed reviews. The game did look a bit janky to me in the media I've seen.
It's pretty clear Playtonic didn't have anywhere near the kind of resources Rare did when they were making B&K and it does seem a little unpolished.. a big part of the appeal of Rares games were the high level of polish as well as how good they looked for the hardware they were running on. That said I hope Playtonic does ok financially and keeps going and improving upon what they've built so far.. Im definitely willing to give the game a chance.
Oh well, Mario Odyssey is bound to be a brilliant 3D platformer and Psychonauts 2 looks to be shaping up nicely so feeling pretty positive about the genre going forward.
It's pretty clear Playtonic didn't have anywhere near the kind of resources Rare did when they were making B&K and it does seem a little unpolished.. a big part of the appeal of Rares games were the high level of polish as well as how good they looked for the hardware they were running on. That said I hope Playtonic does ok financially and keeps going and improving upon what they've built so far.. Im definitely willing to give the game a chance.
Oh well, Mario Odyssey is bound to be a brilliant 3D platformer and Psychonauts 2 looks to be shaping up nicely so feeling pretty positive about the genre going forward.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Good call on new thread. Thanks for the info
MosquitoSmasher
Member
On the Playtonic forum i read that it's likely backers will receive a code before the 11th. One person said it might happen today. Anyone know more?
http://www.playtonicgames.com/a-thank-you/
So I understand that even if we receive the codes we won't be able to play before reale, except for PS4 player. Also the codes will be retrieved from backerkit.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Thanks man. My bro purchased it back then, so i'm sure he knows what to do.
Chronospherics
Member
Worth noting that the critical average of the main stream press doesn't quite align with a broader spectrum of critics. N4G has 127 reviews logged right now, and aggregates the game as having a 8.0 score.
http://n4g.com/channel/yooka-laylee/reviews
With that said, people really have appeared from no where to review this game. It's clear that a lot of people were invested in this game being a success. I would say that the positivity reflected by more independent blogs may be partially attributed to the cognitive dissonance that backers may feel hearing the game doesn't live up to expectations, as well as the differences in expectations that may influence the perception of someone nostalgic for the platformers of old.
http://n4g.com/channel/yooka-laylee/reviews
With that said, people really have appeared from no where to review this game. It's clear that a lot of people were invested in this game being a success. I would say that the positivity reflected by more independent blogs may be partially attributed to the cognitive dissonance that backers may feel hearing the game doesn't live up to expectations, as well as the differences in expectations that may influence the perception of someone nostalgic for the platformers of old.
Cool. Had no idea this site existed.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
So is there no PS4 Pro support for this game? Does it support HDR? Does Boost Mode help with loading times/framerate at all?
Chronospherics
Member
I tend to rely on it more than opencritic or metacritic because both screen out a large number of published review content. Just because an outlet does not publish more than 10 articles a month (or something like that) they are not included on metacritic.
With that said, n4g does have some issues. It's hard to find the review individual game pages (via search only) and as content submission is user driven sometimes content can be missplaced. I have seen betas included in the aggregates for full releases, for instance.
In reality I think we need a better solution, n4g is not curated enough and users make mistakes, and both opencritic and metacritic needlessly screen critical reviews out of their aggregates. All of which have considerable potential to miss-represent the critical reception of a game.
As someone who played both games, can't agree. Bayonatte 2 was an overall better game, especially since it got rid of the 'Press X Not to Die' and it didn't have crap like the highway level.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Reagrding the discussion on objectivity: Of course a review cannot be 100% objective, because weighting of issues and successes will always be a great subjective factor. But a review is not the same thing as "I enjoyed this game this much" - and if a review boils down to just that, it has no journalistic value as a review from my point of view.
Let me discuss, for instance, Dark Souls 3, which I have reviewed. I gave it no score, because we don't give score on that website, but I would have rated the game at least 7/10 in my review, whereas personally, playing it was supreme torture. I'd much rather have played Sonic 2006 a second time, which would have trouble reaching a 2/10 from me. So why, if I hate Dark Souls so profoundly, would I not rate it abysmally? Well, the reason is clear: The game does a lot of things really well. It has a well thought out level design, the enemy design largely is very delicate and perfectly fits the gameplay mechanism. The gameplay mechanisms work as intended and the progression of the tasks is well-suited to keeping the player engaged. The thing just is that I cannot stand controls that are not 100% immediate, that I hate games that are slow in their mechanics. That I feel that the disrespect the game has towards the player's time, making the player repeat very simple tasks upon defeat just to have a second chance of attempting the boss, is significantly impeding any enjoyment I can get out of the game. That much of the perceived challenge just comes from the brutalness of having long fights, unforeseen developments and harsh punishments for failure. These issues are tentamount to me and make Dark Souls 3 a devastatingly horrible experience for me. But as a critic, rather than a mere commenter, I have to keep in mind what the game does well, where it fails and what its goals are. As a reviwer, it is my obligation to outline the strengths and weaknesses in a fair way and to not punish a game for being of a kind that I personally do not enjoy much. Of course, the 7 I would probably have given to Dark Souls 3 would have been a negative outlier for that game, but I feel I have well-explained what issues lead to this.
It would definitely not have been fair, had I rated the game 1/10 just because I personally hate what it sets out to do. But I feel that this is exactly what Jim has done in his Yooka-Laylee review. This is fine in a mere comment, but as you can see form his ratings descriptions, his ratings do not mean "I enjoyed it this much", but, instead, "this is how I think others will enjoy it". The extend to which he describes the meaning of a 2/10 may be exaggerated, but nevertheless it is clear that his review scoring system is not intended to purely measure his personal enjoyment of a game. Indeed, this is how he uses it, as evident by not only this game, but also the Warriors reviews, but <i feel this is not what a review is supposed to be or what he sells his ratings as.
Let me discuss, for instance, Dark Souls 3, which I have reviewed. I gave it no score, because we don't give score on that website, but I would have rated the game at least 7/10 in my review, whereas personally, playing it was supreme torture. I'd much rather have played Sonic 2006 a second time, which would have trouble reaching a 2/10 from me. So why, if I hate Dark Souls so profoundly, would I not rate it abysmally? Well, the reason is clear: The game does a lot of things really well. It has a well thought out level design, the enemy design largely is very delicate and perfectly fits the gameplay mechanism. The gameplay mechanisms work as intended and the progression of the tasks is well-suited to keeping the player engaged. The thing just is that I cannot stand controls that are not 100% immediate, that I hate games that are slow in their mechanics. That I feel that the disrespect the game has towards the player's time, making the player repeat very simple tasks upon defeat just to have a second chance of attempting the boss, is significantly impeding any enjoyment I can get out of the game. That much of the perceived challenge just comes from the brutalness of having long fights, unforeseen developments and harsh punishments for failure. These issues are tentamount to me and make Dark Souls 3 a devastatingly horrible experience for me. But as a critic, rather than a mere commenter, I have to keep in mind what the game does well, where it fails and what its goals are. As a reviwer, it is my obligation to outline the strengths and weaknesses in a fair way and to not punish a game for being of a kind that I personally do not enjoy much. Of course, the 7 I would probably have given to Dark Souls 3 would have been a negative outlier for that game, but I feel I have well-explained what issues lead to this.
It would definitely not have been fair, had I rated the game 1/10 just because I personally hate what it sets out to do. But I feel that this is exactly what Jim has done in his Yooka-Laylee review. This is fine in a mere comment, but as you can see form his ratings descriptions, his ratings do not mean "I enjoyed it this much", but, instead, "this is how I think others will enjoy it". The extend to which he describes the meaning of a 2/10 may be exaggerated, but nevertheless it is clear that his review scoring system is not intended to purely measure his personal enjoyment of a game. Indeed, this is how he uses it, as evident by not only this game, but also the Warriors reviews, but <i feel this is not what a review is supposed to be or what he sells his ratings as.
TIL I am your friend.
well you deprived people who think like you and have similar tastes, of your viewpoint, in favour of a review that probably said the same thing as everyone else
You can outline why a game may not be for a particular audience or why others don't like it without substacting from the review.
For example, I don't like the original Zelda. I find it frustrating, outdated when compared to Link to the Past, and it is my least favorite Zelda game.
I also find Ocarina of Time outdated battle system compared to the newer entries to be a major minus to the game, the over world is boring and empty, and it at times feels like Link to the Past in 3D, except loses the charm that made Link to the Past good. Overall, Ocarina of Time is my least favorite 3D Zelda game.
However, neither of them are terrible games since they soar over what was thought as possible at the time, laid the groundwork for the other games in the series, had great presentation for its time, etc.
It is perfectly possible to see that a game is good, even if you yourself find it mediocre. If I ever write a review of Zelda I, I may put my personal experience why I didn't enjoy it and warn people by what I view as shortcomings, but I can also list the reasons why others would love it.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I did explain why I did not like the game in the text, but would it be interesting to have a long text of me ranting about the general direction of the game instead of explaining my issues, but also clearly outlining the things the game does well, even if they do not lead to me enjoying it, when it is clear, why it will be a great thing for people who like the general direction of the game?
TheVoidDragon
Member
I don't really understand this logic. You're saying that reviewers should review games based on how well it does what it sets out to be rather than just how enjoyable it was for the reviewer...but that is part of what Jim did and why he gave it such a low score. He didn't give it a low score just because he didn't like it, his low score was because it makes the same sort of mistakes the original games in the genre did and doesn't seem to learn from those at all. It wasn't just a case of "I don't like it, 2/10" his complaints were specifically about how he thinks it does everything wrong and doesn't improve on the original games despite the issues those had supposedly being solved. He clearly likes games in the genre, he even backed this on Kickstarter and liked what he played of the pre-release stuff, his low score was because he felt it was a very poor example of the genre.
I'm still not entirely convinced, having read his review, that he knew what the game was going for, even when he backed it. The fact he outright does complain about the game being "archaic" and "outdated" and that "the world kept spinning but this game is from '97!" is not, perhaps, the best excuse he could have done for the game's shortcomings (and to be fair, he is more articulate in other areas, but complaining the game feels like the era it came from is something they were marketing and promoting at the very beginning).
Another thread has already exhaustively covered this, whether "old" inherently means "worse", just as the critics and public moved away from 2D fighters for a time, turn-based JRPGs with random battles, tank-controlled survival horror with fixed camera angles, shoot-em-ups, etc.
I guess when I see "this game made the same mistakes as the original games", a huge part of me is going "well, GOOD. I LOVED those original games, and some of those "mistakes" are actually the reasons I enjoy playing them." Collectathons grew a very sour reputation right around the time DK64 came out, and gamers moved away from them. They were taboo and caustic and frowned upon, while someone like myself, who grew up with them, loved tracking down all the collectibles for no other sake than to find them all. The games were glorified easter egg hunts with cool acrobatics. That's what I wanted, and that's what I got.
And Yooka-Laylee is the same thing. Finding "the easter egg" IS the reward, and for some that's the worst thing a game can do. It's boring. It's outdated. It's unsatisfying. It's repetitive. It's dumb. It's poor design. They want something more substantial in this day and age, and finding something just for the sake of finding it isn't enough.
But for someone like myself who lived and breathed that N64 era madness, this is heaven. The very complaints levied against the game (barring camera controls and performance issues, and, hey, those are getting patched) are THE reason I backed the game, THE reason I'll play the game, and THE reason I'll keep playing the game.
If Jim didn't like the game, no one can tell him different. That's his opinion. But having read his review, and God knows I actually agree with him the majority of the game and defend most of his opinions, I think this was more a case where the game was simply not for him, less than the game inherently has legitimate "2/10 it's broken beyond repair" problems. As I said in another thread, I'm curious what his current opinions are of Banjo-Kazooie and Conker and DK64 in this day and age, because I get the impression he'd be rather cold to them as well, while these are the games Yooka-Laylee branches off from.
It's like making a tank-control, fixed camera, limited saves, clunky survival horror game today that's exactly like Resident Evil 1. Some will always hate the controls, hate the camera angles, and hate the game for not being easy or enjoyable to play, while OTHERS will understand that many of the issues are deliberate, by design, and work incredibly well with the creators' intended vision. Hell, this happened with Yahtzee (and myself) with Demons's Souls, where we both hated the game and felt it was poorly designed, unfair, unbalanced, unintuitive, and poorly paced... until we figured out that it wasn't trying to be a "normal" game. It was doing its own thing, and it didn't care to adapt to modern sensibilities. WE had to adapt to IT, not the other way around.
I'm discovering this with Yooka-Laylee. It's old-school, from a different era, but I'm finding the muscle memory from Super Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, and Conker coming back to me. I'm finding myself able to play it as I used to play with that stupid three-pronged N64 controller. It's like slipping on a pair of very old shoes; worn around the edges, sure, but familiar and comfy. And, most importantly, it just fits. The shoes won't fit everyone else, but for me, it's just right.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Re-reading some of his review it doesn't really come across as him having a problem with the style of game itself. He specifically refers to the late-90s/early 2000s examples of the genre and how the game comes across as having similar shortcomings as those, despite him saying games after that solved those problems.
It being a 90s-style platformer isn't really the problem he seems to have with it. It's that it's a 90s platformer that makes the mistakes as those early games and overall does things poorly compared to other examples. His complaints aren't about the genre itself, but how it ignores the improvements made since those early games. It makes the same sort of mistakes those did at the time - camera, controls etc. He knew what the game would be and makes several references to other games and how what Yooka-Laylee does isn't as fun. I don't see anything that suggests he says it's bad because he just doesn't like that style of game, he says it's bad because it has the same problems the early examples in the genre did even though those shouldn't be there.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
I'm still excited for this game, but getting some actual hands-on time will be telling. I, too, think I want a game from 1998, but we'll have to see how that actually meshes with my adult life.
The great news is, I just got Persona 5, so if Playtonic releases any additional patches in the next month or so, I'll be able to take advantage of the enhancements.
The great news is, I just got Persona 5, so if Playtonic releases any additional patches in the next month or so, I'll be able to take advantage of the enhancements.
SporeCrawler
Member
Haha no. Also worse than the first game? on what platform? on PS3 ?
I've just finished writing up an article on Yooka-Laylee's level design as a stand-alone element of the game and it's surprising how much a mixed bag the game is on this one part. For every moment and/or World that I found genuine enjoyment in exploring or scouting out challenges in, there's of course an environment (in the game's latter parts) that really baffles as to why such a lesser effort was put in.
I briefly went back to some old 3D platformers -- unsurprisingly the more acclaimed ones -- just to get a better idea of the way Playtonic seemed to have replicated (both the good and the bad) of former games and I think it's only when you return to games like Banjo-Kazooie and Super Mario 64 do you realize just how much a game's aesthetic or very structure can benefit the all-round experience.
Take Rusty Bucket Bay for example, possibly the most infamous World of BK due to its difficulty, nature and possible theme tune (which is so atypically Rare-like imho); it's really not that big or complex when you consider it's essentially a rectangular plot with a perimeter going around it, a main "hub" of sorts and a few entryways/exits dotted about. And yet it makes itself feel grand or otherwise challenging because of the care put into its challenges and/or perilous areas at times. It's the opposite to Yooka-Laylee's approach I feel; World 4, Capital Cashino, as I've wrote, some neat platforming segments notwithstanding, feels like it just dots its puzzles about and offers you this large, spacious environment without any real justification or purpose. And then you've got World 5 Galleon Galaxy which goes one step further and makes me think Playtonic just threw darts at a board and thought: "yep, that's how this World's structured...job done!"
It's quite alarming when I can recall locations like SM64's Dire Dire Docks (great music aside) and Wet-Dry World - possibly the most basic World of that game, structurally, with its two small areas - and still find more intrigue and enjoyment with not just the way they're designed, but the additional art-style/aesthetic. Twenty-year old levels that, even now, I can go back to and enjoy messing around in than I can 2017 efforts like the ones in Yooka-Laylee. For the record, there are Worlds in the game I genuinely enjoy and think are really well designed/structured/executed...and that in effect only adds to how baffling Playtonic's see-sawing of quality is and the all-round care for what we're offered goes up and down on a regular basis.
Perhaps my interest in dissecting level design for these kinds of games is due to the fact I'm part of the camp that grew up with 3D platformers - it's been made abundantly clear that those who hadn't that they may not get the appeal of a game like Yooka-Laylee in this day and age, which is fair and understandable. I'm confident that for those who will pick this game up on 11th will have a fair amount of fun simply exploring [some of] these Worlds. It certainly does harken back to the days playing these games as a kid - making stupid Souls-like theories about "THE LORE" of Worlds, a result of being genuinely invested/interested with what was presented - and while Playtonic have indeed kept to their promise, I'd argue that they've perhaps brought back the not-so-pleasant memories of 90's platforming. Mistaking, in the context of level design, hardware limitation for the final product.
For the record, it looks like I fell into the middle-ground of critics/writers who gave the game a 7/10 - falling in-between either extreme it would seem.
I briefly went back to some old 3D platformers -- unsurprisingly the more acclaimed ones -- just to get a better idea of the way Playtonic seemed to have replicated (both the good and the bad) of former games and I think it's only when you return to games like Banjo-Kazooie and Super Mario 64 do you realize just how much a game's aesthetic or very structure can benefit the all-round experience.
Take Rusty Bucket Bay for example, possibly the most infamous World of BK due to its difficulty, nature and possible theme tune (which is so atypically Rare-like imho); it's really not that big or complex when you consider it's essentially a rectangular plot with a perimeter going around it, a main "hub" of sorts and a few entryways/exits dotted about. And yet it makes itself feel grand or otherwise challenging because of the care put into its challenges and/or perilous areas at times. It's the opposite to Yooka-Laylee's approach I feel; World 4, Capital Cashino, as I've wrote, some neat platforming segments notwithstanding, feels like it just dots its puzzles about and offers you this large, spacious environment without any real justification or purpose. And then you've got World 5 Galleon Galaxy which goes one step further and makes me think Playtonic just threw darts at a board and thought: "yep, that's how this World's structured...job done!"
It's quite alarming when I can recall locations like SM64's Dire Dire Docks (great music aside) and Wet-Dry World - possibly the most basic World of that game, structurally, with its two small areas - and still find more intrigue and enjoyment with not just the way they're designed, but the additional art-style/aesthetic. Twenty-year old levels that, even now, I can go back to and enjoy messing around in than I can 2017 efforts like the ones in Yooka-Laylee. For the record, there are Worlds in the game I genuinely enjoy and think are really well designed/structured/executed...and that in effect only adds to how baffling Playtonic's see-sawing of quality is and the all-round care for what we're offered goes up and down on a regular basis.
Perhaps my interest in dissecting level design for these kinds of games is due to the fact I'm part of the camp that grew up with 3D platformers - it's been made abundantly clear that those who hadn't that they may not get the appeal of a game like Yooka-Laylee in this day and age, which is fair and understandable. I'm confident that for those who will pick this game up on 11th will have a fair amount of fun simply exploring [some of] these Worlds. It certainly does harken back to the days playing these games as a kid - making stupid Souls-like theories about "THE LORE" of Worlds, a result of being genuinely invested/interested with what was presented - and while Playtonic have indeed kept to their promise, I'd argue that they've perhaps brought back the not-so-pleasant memories of 90's platforming. Mistaking, in the context of level design, hardware limitation for the final product.
For the record, it looks like I fell into the middle-ground of critics/writers who gave the game a 7/10 - falling in-between either extreme it would seem.
Mechanically speaking, Bayonetta 2 is inferior to Bayonetta. I would say structurally as well.
And I follow, but... well, the camera controls aren't great, but they ARE better than a lot of those original games and it's getting patched anyway. But a wonky camera alone just doesn't seem like a thing that can just utterly cripple a game like this.
For all Jim's talk about games that "got it right" (like "Stars in Mario 64 were fun to get"), I wonder if he's replayed Mario 64 lately, because while many stars ARE fun to get, there are a large portion of them that are annoying, problematic, and a royal pain in the butt to obtain. Those red star coin challenges can be grueling, and finding 100 coins in every level can at times just be a total drag. Underwater levels were rarely Mario64's best stars, and the controls of the wing cap are so cumbersome that any stars related to flying precision almost felt like a crapshoot.
Of course, a game is more than the sum of its parts. A lot of Mario stars were fun, and some were bad, but the overall package compensated for it, especially for its time. There are still many things Mario64 does better than any Mario game since it.
But when Jim makes mention of games that "improved the formula", I don't see any good examples. What games like Yooka-Laylee have come out and "improved the formula" since 1999? Sure, we have smoother controls, cameras, and better graphics, but at its most essential - a collectathon built around grabbing as many shiny things as possible - has been in a standstill for two decades. Even Mario titles after Sunshine abandoned this approach. The things he complains about might be general improvements for ANY genre - third-person, first-person, strategy, platformer, horror, etc. - but the very nature of the game, and why it was funded, seemed to elude him. He has valid complaints, don't get me wrong, and I agree with a lot of what he said.
But a lot of the things Yooka-Laylee does, that ALL 3D platformers from that era did, are things Jim clearly wants to leave in the garbage bin. The crazy thing is, he views those old games and their controls as inferior, clunky, and their central mechanics inherently flawed because 3D was experimental... yet we have Mario64 players and Crash players who acclimated to this type of game and can play them with pin-point accuracy and precision. They adapted to the game and pushed the gameplay far beyond what most players are capable of when they're clumsily hurling Mario off a cliff or smashing Banjo into a wall. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a game do what you want when you want to do it, but like a good fighting game, some games take a lot more to master - or even get competent at - and it's far easier to just label those games as "bad controls" and "they didn't know what they were doing back then", when stuff like tank-controls and platforming controls were actually incredibly intuitive and deliberate design decisions.
But when you have Jim and so many others railing against things like "the dumb and annoying voices" that speak gibberish, when that's a hallmark of the Banjo games and, you know, many of those players LIKE that choice, and it's clearly deliberate, then it does get to a point where I wonder what some critics expected. "We're making a game like Banjo; old-school, 90s-style retro platforming, gibberish voices, same sense of humor, collectathon... the whole shebang." And then they almost act shocked when that's precisely what we got.
Granted, Jim always succeeds at ruffling feathers and pretty much prides on it. He's not really "mainstream taste" and that's a good thing. I like dissenting opinions, and no game should go unchallenged (please, no more GTA4 kool-aid parties). After all, Jim's a guy who would rate Deadly Premonition as a personal 10/10 game, despite being a janky, ugly, buggy, goofy mess whose lack of polish and garbage controls give it a certain charm that's right up his alley. He'll slam Mario Kart 7 for not being "new enough" while unabashedly rating a new Call of Duty more positively because he simply enjoys that formula more. That's not a contradiction; that's just being a human player who rates how he feels at the time, but he doesn't always back up his criticisms well. His feelings and his rating are 100% true to him, but when any critic has to justify their feelings or score beyond "that's just how I felt, mate", it's easy to pull out banal statements like "it's not NEW enough" or "this game design approach is outdated and was always flawed, even back then".
And opinions change over time. Games I hated at first have grown on me. As a player, I despised Dark Souls at first. Personal 4/10. Took me awhile to fully understand what it was going for, and now it's in my top 10 and I've played it three times. It took me THREE attempts to get into Xenogears and Radiant Historia, and now I adore them. My gut-reaction to Final Fantasy XII was so negative, because I was fresh off FFX, that I felt it was the worst Final Fantasy at the time, but years and perspective have shown me I was simply in the wrong headspace and I eagerly anticipate the HD re-release to give it a new playthrough with a fresh pair of eyes.
And I make a point of replaying old games constantly to give me perspective as well and see how they hold up. I've found Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness on N64 to be one of my favorite games now after approaching it differently than I initially did. Turok, Shadowman, Space Station Silicon Valley... games that time has practically forgot that helped create the very industry we love and adore. There'd be no GTA without Body Harvest, no Uncharted 4 without Tomb Raider 1, no Final Fantasy 15 without Final Fantasy NES. It's worth revisiting those styles of games and gleaning what you can from them, both positives and negatives, but to also not discard games similar to them as outdated and archaic just because the years have passed.
While I love a game that respects my limited time these days, I don't hate FF3 for not giving a damn about convenience and only letting me save on the world-map outside of dungeons. If a game came out that played like it by design, I'd adapt, just as I did with FF3. If a survival horror with tank controls and static camera angles came out today, I'd acclimate, just as I did with the RE HD re-releases. That's on me as a player, and I'm up for that challenge, but I understand not every player feels that way any longer.
Yooka-Laylee is a game I can jump into without qualms, but I know for more modern and, well, spoiled gamers who don't lament the passing of that genre and its approach to control and gameplay, it won't work for them at all. It's not what they want. They want something modern, something that LOOKS old but PLAYS new - like a Shovel Knight or an Undertale or a Binding of Isaac. That's not what we got.
But that's what I wanted and what I expected. And it's something I haven't had the opportunity to enjoy since the N64 heyday.
Easy Allies Review (3/5): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuYNE5dKhQ
Uh...no ?
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Good review, but spoiler warning since they show bosses that haven't been shown yet. I thought some of that stuff was still embargoed?
Disappointed that YL doesn't seem to be the revival that I hoped it would be
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
The words definitely sound harsher than the score imo
Yeah was expecting a 1 or 2.
TheUnknownForce
Member
It sounds like he was, frankly. Given what I've heard people say about his opinion on that group of games, I'm not entirely surprised it was given that rating based on other reviewer's comments.
It sounds like a game that goes full into recreating the older games whether for better or worse. Either way, I hope the game does well enough to see where Playtonic goes next. Hopefully they can take some of the criticism here and use it to make a better collect-a-thon in the future.
Yeah. The score seemed to high based on the review. It sounded like he was going to give it a 2.
I think that's just because the review takes time to focus on a few of his gripes in a bit more detail and in a less broad way (like the quiz part).
It also helps that they were reviewing the PC version, but hopefully the console patch brings the other versions closer to it's performance level.
Spieler Eins
Member
He says it's a game that fails to rise above mediocrity and yet there's an above average rating. I can at least think of one other instance where that site already did this nonsense before (Star Ocean 5).
Jawbreaker
Member
Yeah, that sounded like a 2/5 if I had to pin it down.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
I don't agree; almost every comparison they made was about how the game comes up short compared to past efforts. They straight-up called it "mediocre" in the end, after saying that it "fails to rekindle the magic spark" and even that the game's classic gameplay is a "facade."
That doesn't sound like what I would consider a 3/5
EditL Apparently 3 on their scale means "Decent." How is "mediocre" decent?
RareFantasy64
Member
The 6ish/7ish reviews for a game like this (a game stylistically designed to be a retro sort of game by an indie developer) don't bother me. I'm done with the attitude that a game that scores less than an 8 is trash. I will be picking this up and I will also be picking up Mighty No. 9
If a game like BOTW scored 6s, yeah, that would be pause for concern. But for a game like this? It's not the end of the world.
Edit: I do wonder why indie games styled after NES gameplay (like Shovel Knight) are reviewing better than games made to feel like N64 platforming though. I don't think N64 platforming gameplay has aged worse than NES platformer gameplay
If a game like BOTW scored 6s, yeah, that would be pause for concern. But for a game like this? It's not the end of the world.
Edit: I do wonder why indie games styled after NES gameplay (like Shovel Knight) are reviewing better than games made to feel like N64 platforming though. I don't think N64 platforming gameplay has aged worse than NES platformer gameplay
and a 2 is "inferior", and mediocre doesn't mean inferior either.
He probably was leaning between 2.5 and 3 and decided on 3.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Inferior sounds a heck of a lot closer than "decent," seeing as literally every comparison they made was about how the game was inferior to past efforts.
Not really, it made more of a case that they were exactly like past efforts, for better and for worse by modern standards.
Gotta agree with people, that sounded like a 2 or 2.5, but I suppose some of those complaints could be considered nitpicks so I guess 3 is still in the ball park.
If the quiz isn't any worse than the two in BK and BT, I'll probably actually like it. If the game is not as good or memorable as those games, though, it might be a bit more difficult to remember the answers to the questions.
Some of the voices in Banjo games were annoying, but I also liked most of them, so I don't think it was necessarily a bad decision to adapt that to Yooka-Laylee. However, Yooka's voice in that video did sound like it might become a bit irritating after a while, which isn't very good since he's one of the main characters. Hopefully that won't be the case once I get around to playing the game.
By being having the same meaning?
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mediocre?s=t
Man, that quiz mechanic is so stupid. What the hell. I'd google that every single time.
But yeah, definitely passing after this review.
I never cared for the quiz part in BK.
Did people like it back then, I wonder?
The quiz thing was my least favorite thing in Paper Mario as well.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Man, did we watch the same review? The review literally opens with the question: Can Yooka-Laylee possibly live up to its lofty pedigree? They then answer that question throughout the review.
-----------------------
Yeah, and "literally" literally means anything but these days according to the dictionaries. I've never heard anyone use "Mediocre" as a synonym for "decent" in common usage, and especially not in a reviewing context.
Since you agree the review sounds more like a 2, you think "decent" sounds just as apt as "mediocre"?
There's just as many mentions of it being exactly comparable to the Rare games of the past. None of those quotes mention it being inferior, but instead not learning from the past, or building on the past.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
You don't need to literally use the word "inferior" when the context makes that abundantly clear. Pretty sure they don't use the word "decent" either