IGN Madworld review - 9.0
- Thread starter Chumly
- Start date
abstract alien
Member
Hopefully the hard mode will be as balanced at viewtiful joe's ultra v-rated mode...i really dont want to play something that is ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous. Ridiculous while being ridiculously balanced is what im looking for. I guess i shouldn't worry though, considering who the developer is and what they have done before.
It seems like the problem with most Wii "mainstream" or "hardcore" games is that they either lack something fundamental that other systems bring (meaningful online or coop play or something of that sort) or they're too short.
I'd buy Madworld in a second if it had coop story mode, or was backed by an online system that functioned. But I hate to drop 50 bucks on a 6 - 10 hour game (if I played through it twice). That's a rental at best from me, and I'm sure it's the same for many gamers.
I'd buy Madworld in a second if it had coop story mode, or was backed by an online system that functioned. But I hate to drop 50 bucks on a 6 - 10 hour game (if I played through it twice). That's a rental at best from me, and I'm sure it's the same for many gamers.
AceBandage
Banned
Slathe said:
Or, maybe, it's that this kind of game doesn't lend itself well to online or story coop...
Zoramon089
Banned
Slathe said:
Uhh, so now a game has to have some sort of multiplayer mode or it's lacking something "fundamental"? Most of the games on other systems are also very short...Either way, you're comparing games that are tailored to multiplayer (like shooters) with a beat em up which is an incredibly unfair comparison
VistraNorrez
Member
Slathe said:
Then then game isn't for you, but don't be disappointed in something that it wasn't meant to be.
When I think beat'em up, I think Streets of Rage (co-op), Double Dragon (co-op in it's best versions), Final Fight (co-op), Castle Crashers (co-op). I'd say some of the prime examples of the genre fundamentally allow for two players to play together, and, at their best they utilize the co-op to allow for team moves, etc... Note that the video review compares it to that genre of games and lists some of those above by name.
So yeah, I'd say it's fundamental feature missing (for this genre, not for every game type ever) to leave co-op out. The fact that they try and patch it up with a half done version of co-op where you can play just the mini games shows that they know there'd be appeal for that feature. I don't think it's an unfair complaint or comparison to say that a beat'em up should be playable by more than one player at a time (much like a shooter, though I wasn't making that comparison at all).
It's also kind of silly to rebuff my complaint by saying I'm trying to make the game something that it's not. Fundamentally, any complaint about a game missing a feature one would like to see is a complaint seeking to make the game something that it's not. I just don't think it's a huge extrapolation to expect a game labeled as a beat'em up to bring meaningful multi-player to the table.
And yes, other systems have games with short stories, and I'd make the same complaint of them. But it seems like an easier fix when they throw some online co-op, DLC, or other way to extend play time on the 360 or PS3. Something that it's a little harder to do with the Wii.
So yeah, I'd say it's fundamental feature missing (for this genre, not for every game type ever) to leave co-op out. The fact that they try and patch it up with a half done version of co-op where you can play just the mini games shows that they know there'd be appeal for that feature. I don't think it's an unfair complaint or comparison to say that a beat'em up should be playable by more than one player at a time (much like a shooter, though I wasn't making that comparison at all).
It's also kind of silly to rebuff my complaint by saying I'm trying to make the game something that it's not. Fundamentally, any complaint about a game missing a feature one would like to see is a complaint seeking to make the game something that it's not. I just don't think it's a huge extrapolation to expect a game labeled as a beat'em up to bring meaningful multi-player to the table.
And yes, other systems have games with short stories, and I'd make the same complaint of them. But it seems like an easier fix when they throw some online co-op, DLC, or other way to extend play time on the 360 or PS3. Something that it's a little harder to do with the Wii.
jaundicejuice
Member
At this rate this thread will surpass the official one in about a day. That's kind of surreal.
Dead Prince
Banned
i cancelled the game some days ago on amazon when i preordered it at 40 dollars ;(
Oh well. I'll get it eventually.
Oh well. I'll get it eventually.
abstract alien
Member
I can understand what you are saying, but this game looks like it was designed from the ground up as a single player experience. It would need an overhaul if they added a second player...especially with fighting a boss. Streets of rage, castle crasher, final fight...all of those are VERY shallow(still tons of fun) when it comes to design. It mostly has you pounding someone into oblivion in a very simple manner, and more importantly, is designed for one or two players to jump in and out of. This is meant to be a single player experience from the ground up as far as story mode is concerned, so while i understand you may not want this, its not really a *fault* if it was a design decision to begin with.Slathe said:
Colonel Mustard
Banned
I dropped 60 bones on Gears of War and completed the game in five hours or so. Bought HOTD: Overkill for $50--beat the main story-mode in an hour and a half.Slathe said:
$50-$60 isn't shit to drop on something that'll give you a little enjoyment.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I go to sleep only to wake up to a thread full of people bitching and moaning about the genre and length of the game, despite all reviews thus far stating that the game is an immense blast to play.
Ugh, GAF fail.
Ugh, GAF fail.
AniHawk said:
I'd agree with this. Some games feel like better value than others, and length is only one of many factors that come into play. I prefer longer story modes; but a good difficulty curve, worthwhile unlockables, or New Game+ modes mean that I can easily squeeze $60 worth of enjoyment out of fairly short games like Devil May Cry 1 or Gears 1.
MadWorld sounds like it delivered on its promise in spades. I won't be buying it, but as a Wii owner I'm very glad to see a new M-rated game on the system that should actually be as much fun as the RE4 port, if not more so.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
welcome to my [internet] worldEatChildren said:
jaundicejuice
Member
Fuu said:
True but I just find it odd that people come out of the woodwork to niggle away at things like the length or the lack of co-op.
I don't recall people complaining about a lack of co-op in action games like No More Heroes, Product Number 03, God Hand or any of the God of Wars, Devil May Crys, Ninja Gaidens. Why is MadWorld different? As for the length, I just think back to Devil May Cry 4 and how that would have been such a better game without Dante's section or how Chains of Olympus only lasted me 4 hours on my first play but it was a total blast through. The length doesn't bother me so long as it's a kick ass game. I`ll take short but sweet over filler any day.
I`ll just leave it at that and bow out of this thread as I have nothing new to interject to the conversation, I was sold on the game long ago.
PuppetSlave
Member
I want this game so bad. But my aching backlog...
From the eurogamer review.
Now I want it even more
From the eurogamer review.
Now I want it even more
rollingstart
Banned
the only reason one should compain abou the length is if they compare it to God Hand, which was surprisingly long considering it was an action game - BUT THIS ISN'T GOD HAND 2 AND IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH. 6 hours is a fine length.
Kabuki Waq
Member
anyone who thinks length is not a factor when purchasing a single player game is delusional.
If something is very short why not just rent it finish it acouple of times be done with it for the fraction of the price?
If something is very short why not just rent it finish it acouple of times be done with it for the fraction of the price?
Buttseckslol
Banned
Because sometimes you get really baked and you're like, "Man I wish I could play that game I rented a week ago right now. That game was badass!". Then you awkwardly swing you head in the direction of your closest time indicator and find that all the rental places are closed and you're like, "FUCK!". So then you put on your filthy stained denim pants and Ween t-shirt and drag you still very blazed ass to your local Walmart to buy the shit out of said game and a bag of Fritos twists and some Hawaiian Punch. That's why.Kabuki Waq said:
rollingstart
Banned
Kabuki Waq said:
Anyone who thinks length is a factor when purchasing a single player game needs to step back and realize that they shouldn't be playing video games to finish them, but to enjoy them. Not to say that you can't enjoy a game you rent or anything.
HK-47 said:
they can't really be compared in the end, but yeah, that is true
Dead Man Typing
Member
This game must be bought.
perfectchaos007
Member
Kabuki Waq said:
The Watchmen costs the same amount of money to watch as Tyler Perrys whatever movie. The Watchmen is 3 hours long and most comedies are 1 hour 20 minutes but they all cost the same amount to watch.
What the fuck is this length bitching? All action games like this are short. DMC games tend to be a little longer but only because of the horrible level design and backtracking. These games are meant to be replayed and mastered.
And you know where you can shove that co-op talk...
And you know where you can shove that co-op talk...
JetSetRadio
Banned
Finally, a 3rd party triple A title.
But lol @ IGN's pathetic begging to buy it :lol
But lol @ IGN's pathetic begging to buy it :lol
Well, to be fair my posts were directly responding to why this game (and others like it) don't seem to hit high sales numbers. I think it's because for some people who don't always have the money to drop on full price games, games that lack the ability to give sustainable gameplay (particularly if you're not interested in re-runs) and have a short one-time-through play time aren't always worth a 50 - 60 dollar purchase.
Admittedly, harder modes and topping your score are one way to increase replay value. Adding co-op is another. Downloadable content, online leaderboards, etc... are all just features one can put on a game to give it more reason to be played again. When any game limits the options or reasons to make a game replayable, whether it's by (bad) design choice or for another reason, it saps some of the value out of a potential game.
Madworld looks to be a pretty amazing game. I think it'd be a ton of fun to play. But when the question arises of "why didn't this game sell more copies", it's pretty easy to see that unless someone has money to drop on every good new game that comes out, they might find there's not enough play value for a full price purchase. Once you have to discriminate between which game you'd want to spend your money on at release, the amount of additional features becomes a bigger factor towards purchase, and it seems realistic enough to say a game I can't play fully with my friend when he's over, with my friend over an online server, and which I've seen the entire story in 4 hours may not have as much value as another equal quality game that I can get 10 - 12 hours out of the solo story, play with others to share the experience with them, or have different modes to completely change the gameplay experience.
Maybe the excellent gameplay, narrative and the challenge and desire to do repeat run-throughs give Madworld a replay value far and above its base 4 - 6 hours. But it seems like it's kind of a gamble to drop money on a game hoping that it'll be the exception, and not the standard, when it comes to those things (especially if you already are aware what features you prefer in games and don't usually look to the types offered by Madworld as a way to get more value for your money).
And just because some people don't think "length matters" doesn't mean, again, that others don't value it differently. When you cut out a subsection of the gamer population, don't be surprised when a game doesn't sell well (I, for example, have played a large number of the actions games listed as having 'equal length' stories with worse gameplay, but own very few of them. They weren't worth 60 dollar new price purchases, and get bought or rented when they're more in line with how much fun I think they're worth).
As for all the stuff about this being a critique to prove my "prediction" right, that just seems silly as I don't care whether the game sells well or not, just whether I'd enjoy it and whether I think it's worth a purchase. I was simply offering an answer, using my own experience, as to why one might not see huge sales for this game.
Admittedly, harder modes and topping your score are one way to increase replay value. Adding co-op is another. Downloadable content, online leaderboards, etc... are all just features one can put on a game to give it more reason to be played again. When any game limits the options or reasons to make a game replayable, whether it's by (bad) design choice or for another reason, it saps some of the value out of a potential game.
Madworld looks to be a pretty amazing game. I think it'd be a ton of fun to play. But when the question arises of "why didn't this game sell more copies", it's pretty easy to see that unless someone has money to drop on every good new game that comes out, they might find there's not enough play value for a full price purchase. Once you have to discriminate between which game you'd want to spend your money on at release, the amount of additional features becomes a bigger factor towards purchase, and it seems realistic enough to say a game I can't play fully with my friend when he's over, with my friend over an online server, and which I've seen the entire story in 4 hours may not have as much value as another equal quality game that I can get 10 - 12 hours out of the solo story, play with others to share the experience with them, or have different modes to completely change the gameplay experience.
Maybe the excellent gameplay, narrative and the challenge and desire to do repeat run-throughs give Madworld a replay value far and above its base 4 - 6 hours. But it seems like it's kind of a gamble to drop money on a game hoping that it'll be the exception, and not the standard, when it comes to those things (especially if you already are aware what features you prefer in games and don't usually look to the types offered by Madworld as a way to get more value for your money).
And just because some people don't think "length matters" doesn't mean, again, that others don't value it differently. When you cut out a subsection of the gamer population, don't be surprised when a game doesn't sell well (I, for example, have played a large number of the actions games listed as having 'equal length' stories with worse gameplay, but own very few of them. They weren't worth 60 dollar new price purchases, and get bought or rented when they're more in line with how much fun I think they're worth).
As for all the stuff about this being a critique to prove my "prediction" right, that just seems silly as I don't care whether the game sells well or not, just whether I'd enjoy it and whether I think it's worth a purchase. I was simply offering an answer, using my own experience, as to why one might not see huge sales for this game.
AniHawk said:
Precisely. Same applies for the RE5 debate - it's not the length that matters, but what you pack into the time that counts. And Mad World looks like it's packed in 6 hours of FUCKTASTIC with a side dish of RADTACULAR. Much longer if you tackle the hard mode, I imagine. It's pretty cool, in other words.
I think the amount of content really doesn't play all that big part in sales. The genre and style of the game are way bigger factors.
And I'm definately a "fuck the amount of content" guy these days, when my playtime is strickly limited. I don't care if a 60 game lasts 10 minutes if those ten minutes are amazing and groundbreaking.
For example the +10 hours in Bioshock were way too much imo. Could've been half the length.
And I'm definately a "fuck the amount of content" guy these days, when my playtime is strickly limited. I don't care if a 60 game lasts 10 minutes if those ten minutes are amazing and groundbreaking.
For example the +10 hours in Bioshock were way too much imo. Could've been half the length.
Flachmatuch
Member
"Anybody who says Nintendo's console is just for kids will see things very differently after a few chainsaw- induced mutilations."
"Chainsaw-induced mutilations" actually are for kids. Not that I have any problem with this, but "maturity" has nothing to do with simplistic aggression and violence in general, just the opposite.
"Chainsaw-induced mutilations" actually are for kids. Not that I have any problem with this, but "maturity" has nothing to do with simplistic aggression and violence in general, just the opposite.
Future PhaZe
Member
Platinum Games off to a hell of a start.
Cmon Kamiya! Bayonetta better be ballin son.
...Mikami? <3
Cmon Kamiya! Bayonetta better be ballin son.
...Mikami? <3
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
We all know Bayonetta is going to be ball-numbingly awesome.Dark FaZe said:
I wish PG would hurry up and give us some sort of insight into Mikami's next project. I hope it's a Resident Evil killer, so to speak.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It used to be that you would play the hell out of a game, trying to find hidden stuff, trying out new tactics, getting as good as you could at it. Now people treat SP games like movies - you play through to the end, see all the story and you are done - you played the game.Kabuki Waq said:
Pretty much. I have a friend like that and he argues that "it doesn't make sense by then, the story ended" when I tell him I'll do the extra stuff in the game after I play it to the end once. I usually don't collect and unlock everything in my first playthrough and it blows his mind that I actually play the same games more than once after I "finish" them.poppabk said:
Vinterbird
Member
Fuu said:
I'm in the same boat as your friend. Once I see the credits, the game goes up on the shelf and I will never touch it again. Personally I feel that once i've played it to completion, there is no reason to do it all again.