The Wonderful 101 Review Thread

You know that Nintedo paid for this game, don't you? I don't think TW101 would get a sequel without existing in the first place.

Yes, yes I know the logistics and I'm sure it will be better existing than not at all.

By people you mean Nintendo? Probably because its their platform and they want to support it.

Honestly? Yes, nintendo should realy ditch the console market and become third party. They can keep their handhelds since that is the only thing they can do right but that's not a conversation for this thread.
 
What determines how well a game sells anyway? Do kids these days look at metacritic? Word of mouth? What is the deciding factor.

From the last study I can find, Word of Mouth is the biggest driver: http://kotaku.com/5428141/word-of-mouth-sells-the-most-video-games

ku-medium.jpg


Retail is retail presence, like those giant cardboard stands you see or the clerk telling you to buy it.
 
Thankfully I played it and it's awesome. But if not for that, I'd probably pass on it based on the mixed reviews. And from my perspective, it's nothing like Pikmin. It may look like that from videos, but it is clearly more related to Viewtiful Joe or something highly action-oriented. I can't believe that review would even try to string their gameplay styles together.
 
I'm not internally sure: But should a reviewer bash a game for not being suitable for children? Eurogamer.

Some slight spoilers

8 year olds these days play call of duty, so I don't think a joke about cougars or some suggestive cartoon sexuality will ruin their minds. If anything they wont completely understand it. Saturday morning cartoons have suggestive content like this sometimes, so lowering the rating, because he feels its better for younger kids seems a bit odd.
 
I for one am surprised that it scored aswell as it did, even the IGN review is higher than I thought it would get from most sites. I thought there were a lot of 6 and 6.5's coming due to it's art style and 'complex' controls.

Have the game pre ordered, will get it on Wed or Thursday.
 
Reviews can be written in any manner, how well they're written or the way they're written is what dictates if a review is good or not. They don't need to follow the guidelines you posted.

Of course, next time I'm gonna write an haiku about GTAV and call it a review. Also you didn't touch on what I said about objectivity, even though from your response I guess you think it's not really needed. -_-
 
Let's not act like reviewer's don't rate games that are fairly simple mechanically, don't pose much of a challenge, and are able to be completed in a short time higher than more complex games that take time to master.

Games can take a few hours to up to a hundred hours to complete. Reviewers seem to get paid peanuts so it's no surprise that they don't spend a huge amount of time with any single game since they have to play a'lot of games and put out a'lot of reviews.

That's why I'd rather listen to the opinions of GAF members that have the time to actually dig deep into a game and are passionate about the industry rather than a bunch of people that have to play a ridiculous amount of games at all times.
 
Tells the developer that this was not a good idea and they can compare that to the other ideas that they have had that were more successful. Negative and positive reinforcement are both important to building quality products.
.

And that is why we want TW101 to succeed.
 
IGN can go to hell. First get a real review score system. Second the controls are great. If this game was published by anyone else it would have got a 8 or higher....
 
A part of me always hoped that this game would do bad (yeah, hate me, it didn't seem like a good idea from the start to me) but I was not expecting the bad reviews to come out in force. Guess we will see what EU consumers have to say next week.

The fuck is this?
 
Tells the developer that this was not a good idea and they can compare that to the other ideas that they have had that were more successful. Negative and positive reinforcement are both important to building quality products.

Tells the developer that wii u was not a good idea and they can compare that to the other ps3/360 ideas that they have had that were more successful.
 
Well let's just say that publishers don't put those Metacritic bonus goals just because they can.
It's just a further level of conditionality to motivate (read: fuck over) developers foolish enough to sign up to it. I'd love to see some in depth studies of metacritic's influence on sales. Perhaps through Steam, which usually lists the Metacritic inside the store page. I wouldn't read that much into it, however.

Do people review Candy Crush and Farmville?
 
And that is why we want TW101 to succeed.

And that's why I'd rather it doesn't. I felt like the premise was mediocre at best. We'll see what happens commercially and I'm fine either way, I just feel like this wasn't that great for a platinum idea.

Tells the developer that wii u was not a good idea and they can compare that to the other ps3/360 ideas that they have had that were more successful.

You're really digging the whole conspiracy that Wii U games are automatically rated lower, aren't you?
 
IGN can go to hell. First get a real review score system. Second the controls are great. If this game was published by anyone else it would have got a 8 or higher....
Oh boy

Edit: Christ, that was a quick ban! Why the hell do people have that sort of mindset anyway?
 
I thought that I would hate critics reviews even more after Pikmin 3 launch. I was wrong...

Man, I played another game (demo)?
 
Honestly? Yes, nintendo should realy ditch the console market and become third party. They can keep their handhelds since that is the only thing they can do right but that's not a conversation for this thread.

Maybe Sony should drop the PS4 since they lost billions this generation on the PS3?
 
The demo felt amazing, the higher reviews state what I feel will be strengths of the game, and Platinum's blogs have revealed the game to be even deeper than I thought initially. In the end, the lower reviews don't really mean anything to me. It remains to be seen if the later weapons actually do have input issues, but considering people had issues with the demo, which I had no issues with, I'm not sure how much they'll apply to me.

I'm anticipating impressions from people who picked up the demo quickly, and I'm still looking forward to release.
 
And that's why I'd rather it doesn't. I felt like the premise was mediocre at best. We'll see what happens commercially and I'm fine either way, I just feel like this wasn't that great for a platinum idea

did you even play the demo?
 
Don't you think though that the process of reviewing a game should be comprised of a certain degree of objectivity? What if a particular reviewer hates a certain type of game, should he rate it lower just because it's not his favourite genre?

It's not just a matter of conveying one's experience with the game, that'd be a simple opinion, not a review. A reviewer should take into account:

  • The value of the game, what you get for the price you pay (something which is almost never taken into account).
  • How innovative is that game for its own genre, or how well the formula of the genre is conveyed in its gameplay and controls.
  • How much it manages to do technically in regards to the maximum specs of the system it's played on (graphics and sound).
  • He should aknowledge any artistic traits of the game.
  • Most importantly, he should be able to see what the game tried to accomplish as a whole, and decide if the game reached its self-imposed goal, or if it failed trying to reach it.

That sounds like some awful Consumer Reports-style product review bullshit.

When reviewing art, all that matters is the opinion.
 
Of course, next time I'm gonna write an haiku about GTAV and call it a review. Also you didn't touch on what I said about objectivity, even though from your response I guess you think it's not really needed. -_-

If you find objective reviews to be an accurate and honest way to gauge a product, sure, objectivity is great then. But thinking a review needs objective assertions and observations to properly present what a product is, is naive. I don't read reviews with a mental tick box of what the review should cover before making my own assertions of a game.

If your GTA V haiku made me shit bricks with how concise and honest it is, that's a great review.

That sounds like some awful Consumer Reports-style product review bullshit.

When reviewing art, all that matters is the opinion.

This too.
 
Not too hard to imagine that this could get a sequel:

1) Does about a million worldwide over the next two years (not great but probably profitable at that point)

2) Nintendo needs some more games because HD development is hard

3) There's already a TW101 engine and assets

4) Cheap, quick turn around sequel

5) ???

6) Profit
I think that depends a lot on if it sells 1 million copies at full price or not. Bayonetta apparently sold around a million copies worldwide, but Sega canceled a sequel for it, and The Wonderful 101 had a higher budget than Bayonetta.
 
Thankfully I played it and it's awesome. But if not for that, I'd probably pass on it based on the mixed reviews. And from my perspective, it's nothing like Pikmin. It may look like that from videos, but it is clearly more related to Viewtiful Joe or something highly action-oriented. I can't believe that review would even try to string their gameplay styles together.

Isometric view + 100 people on screen = same Genre, same everything.
 
Don't you think though that the process of reviewing a game should be comprised of a certain degree of objectivity? What if a particular reviewer hates a certain type of game, should he rate it lower just because it's not his favourite genre?

It's not just a matter of conveying one's experience with the game, that'd be a simple opinion, not a review. A reviewer should take into account:


  • The value of the game, what you get for the price you pay (something which is almost never taken into account).
  • How innovative is that game for its own genre, or how well the formula of the genre is conveyed in its gameplay and controls.
  • How much it manages to do technically in regards to the maximum specs of the system it's played on (graphics and sound).
  • He should aknowledge any artistic traits of the game.
  • Most importantly, he should be able to see what the game tried to accomplish as a whole, and decide if the game reached its self-imposed goal, or if it failed trying to reach it.

There is no scientific matrix to measure the degree of objectivity one must use when giving an opinion on anything. Let's face it, a review is just a paid opinion no matter how you slice it. The criteria you listed is the basis of how you personally would evaluate a game, which is fine. Perhaps as an informed individual seeking out reviewers that follow that same criteria would better suit you. Otherwise critiquing someone's professional opinion is pissing against the wind.
 
Maybe Sony should drop the PS4 since they lost billions this generation on the PS3?

It's a different situation. Nintendo are becoming more irrelevant in the console market. Sony lost some relevancy (especially in the US) and a shit ton of cash but they never became irrelevant. Nintendo has a lot to do to not become irrelevant in the console market with the WiiU
 
Maybe Sony should drop the PS4 since they lost billions this generation on the PS3?

Dat hyperbole!

And no, I think nintendo should drop their big brand console market because of their failure to understand their market. Profit/loss margins are one of the indicators of this but not the only. The Wii U is also just continuing the lackluster performence of the Wii. We have yet to see what the next generation looks like for other companies.
 
Dat hyperbole!

And no, I think nintendo should drop their big brand console market because of their failure to understand their market. Profit/loss margins are one of the indicators of this but not the only. The Wii U is also just continuing the lackluster performence of the Wii. We have yet to see what the next generation looks like for other companies.

You have got to be kidding me.

lackluster performence of the Wii

lackluster performence of the Wii

lackluster performence of the Wii

Let that sink for a bit...
 
Why is this surprising? These reviewers are fresh off of the Last of Us, where controls are secondary to the movie that is called a game. Of course when a game expects you to draw a circle as opposed to pushing a triangle to avoid death, the controls will be an issue.

Flame away!
Not to get too much into an arguement about this, but i must ask out of curiousity, is there even a place in The Last Of Us where you press triangle (or whatever one-click-button) to avoid death? I cant remember anything like that.

EDIT: Or maybe if you have a shiv available and the clickers attack you.
 
did you even play the demo?

I've already said I've had no hands-on time with this game. I've watched plenty of media for it and since all I'm doing is judging the premise of the game, whether or not I've played the demo has little bearing on my feelings.
 
Top Bottom