I'm going to leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4r9_SybpIs
The Wonderful 101 Review Thread
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Why would it? The game is better played with the analogue stick?
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
I find it hilarious that people are making light of people complaining about reviews as if it doesn't happen for every big release.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I'm more concerned about the bloated runtime critics keep mentioning then the controls. Kamiya isn't averse to putting hours and hours of filler into his games, like say, the entirety of Okami, or recycling boss fights. Edge mentioned fighting the same boss five times, repeating "set piece" moments, etc.
As is this game according to Kamiya and Trinnen
Anyway, it's not a bias against Nintendo, but against non-traditional control schemes by the reviewers.
onken
Member
dat salt.
To be clear, there's Edge the gaming site and Edge the gaming magazine.
I think it's the magazine that gave Bayonetta a 10.
People need to chill the fuck out about review score for a bit though. You guys played the demo, it was great, you're going to looove the game but keep in mind that it might not be the second coming of the Christ and have at least a couple of things you don't like or wish were done in some other way.
Unite Chill Out!
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Yeah, that's disappointing.
The game seems to have fine variety but maybe it didn't need to be as long as it is and by that, I mean because some of that is recycled shit.
The combat is super fun though so maybe it won't be too bad.
Isn't it known that Edge puts a score they expect the gaming community would expect?
or something like that or they put bad scores to games they think the gaming community would hate and put good scores on games they would like?
I could be wrong.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
If EDGE gave it a more positive score, people would be singing a different tune.
michaeltraps
Member
Really not understanding the control issues some sites have been experiencing. I've played the demo 3-4 times now and haven't had any problems. In fact, I get better at it each time I play.
Are the Pikmin 3 comparisons accurate? (I've never played a Pikmin game before)
Are the Pikmin 3 comparisons accurate? (I've never played a Pikmin game before)
Then make the review based on ALL methods of control options supported by the game.
I don't think that's right. Their magazine/online reviews are the exact same words. At least in the cases that I've actually read the review again from the other source.
You're thinking of Game Informer
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Nah, it's not like Pikmin much at all besides having a group of people with you that help you out.
I guess maybe the attack where they all climb on the enemy but even that isn't quite the same in purpose.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Reviewers say the game is good/great. Still not good enough for fanboys.
Now know to avoid review threads in the future, Fuck this thread, Im out.
Now know to avoid review threads in the future, Fuck this thread, Im out.
olimpia84
Member
I'm really glad they released a demo for this. To me, this game is definitely 9.X territory considering it has a long campaign and the combat, while hectic, is fun as hell once you start figuring things out.
I do understand some of the complaints about the controls however, at certain points some of my drawings were simply not registering in the gamepad. Not a big deal for me at that point in time since I was just playing the demo to enjoy it but that could become an issue if I decide to go for high scores.
I do understand some of the complaints about the controls however, at certain points some of my drawings were simply not registering in the gamepad. Not a big deal for me at that point in time since I was just playing the demo to enjoy it but that could become an issue if I decide to go for high scores.
Oh ye I am....
Ravensmash
Member
Is this typical criticism of reviews based around a game that is yet to release, alongside dismay at personal subjectivity?
I guarantee that once the game is released, some of the criticisms elicited by reviewers will be echoed by segments of the playerbase in the OT. Same happened with Bioshock, same happened with TLOU.
Does it mean that the reviewers are right? No.
Are reviews meant to be a definitive statement? No.
I guarantee that once the game is released, some of the criticisms elicited by reviewers will be echoed by segments of the playerbase in the OT. Same happened with Bioshock, same happened with TLOU.
Does it mean that the reviewers are right? No.
Are reviews meant to be a definitive statement? No.
It's a never-ending cycle. I still remember Uncharted 3 Eurogamer....
Yeah, the only review threads I'm going to check out are for universally bad games, like Ride to Hell: Retribution.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I wonder if people are trying to draw their shapes too quickly and so they are inaccurate or drawing without looking at the screen.
When I first started playing I was a mess, I rushing to draw the shape and was screwing up. When I slowed down and watched what I was doing and actually understand the nuances of the shapes, it was a joy to use.
I can only draw the sword and hand without looking at the screen. I also use the sticks for the ladders and the wonder toilet.
I can't wait to play the fullgame. I wonder if there will be a day one patch.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Isn't it rather natural? the game isn't out yet, and there is a demo thread and a review thread to discuss what there is to discuss at this point.
I mean OTs pre-release are usually 60% "OMG I'm so hyped", 20% "Nice OT, OP!" and 20% "Why isn't this out in Region X yet??"
thanks for raising the level of discourse
Wait a second... The concept looks interesting to you, you like non-traditional games, but suddenly W101 doesn't appeal to you because someone (and not even someone, but some unnamed member of an ever-changing editorial board) said something in a review?
You are under no obligation to buy, play, like our game or anything else for that matter... But I promise you that you are far more capable at making informed decisions about what you like/will like than anyone working at any review producing outlet anywhere.
--------------
I'd also like to add that I've read plenty of the reviews, and honestly, I'm far more interested in the impressions that will happen on the threads here and on our board than I am in reading any more of anything in a standard review format.
Just think of this. Games are about play. Play is about fun. Why don't reviews spend more time talking about that? In the IGN review, the word "fun" is used once. Edge once. Digitalspy twice. CVG twice. Gamesradar 3 times. Videogamer.com twice. In the Gamespot review, it appears 0 times. It doesn't show up in Eurogamer either. Nor in Nowgamer. Nintendolife used it 6 times.
If you play games to have fun, I don't think there is much use in paying attention to reviews, good and bad, that barely even broach the subject. You are better off making the decision yourself.
Need to make sure my opinion/purchase is validated before I can have any fun.
Seriously though, people need to start looking at games/genres they like, and not at numbers. For example, I love strategy/RPG stuff and because of that I'd take something like Divinity Dragon Commander over something like TLOU any day despite the critical reception differential, I know what types of games I like based off of decades enjoying the medium, I don't need a number to form my opinion.
If someone likes quirky Japanese action games then they shouldn't need a score to know how much fun they'll have with it compared to other products, despite any score differential regarding other games in other genres.
dude, just play the demo and form an opinion for yourself, it's not that hard.
well, to be fair, the "oposite" comments are pretty embarassing too.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the demo showed me just how fun the game is. Fun, fun, fun , fun and fun.
fun.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I rather the reviews talk about the mechanics of the game than generic descriptors like "it's fun!" "charming" "soulless", etc. Ok, what about it makes it fun or soulless or generic or whatever? Break it down for me.
I don't see a problem with using reviews to guide yourself, for me personally GAF's opinions are more interesting, specially in a genre where gameplay depth make a difference. Reviewers don't have the time to master a game, they have to move on to the next one they have to review, so even the high scores are not reliable when it comes to one of the things that matter the most for this game.
I'm pretty sure that Edge means with "distorted concept of value" (if it wasn't Edge pelase correct me) that it should be more meaningful, instead of more content, but this is something you only care when you play through a game once and move on, when you play it to master the system, meaning gets lost and you'll never get the experience you had in your first playthrough again, so it becomes all about gameplay, even in story-centered games. Replay value through content may not be that well received in the citizen kane state of videogames these days, but for this kind of game, I don't want meaning, I want content, I want replayability.
Again, I don't blame reviewers for the lack of understanding of the game's mechanics or whatever, they simply don't have the time, even if they wish they had (some places are just straight up horrible at the game, like the IGN guy failing to draw a straight line), you just have to keep that in mind when you read reviews. I love GiantBomb, they're incredible, but if I'm interested in the gameplay part of a game, I sure as hell won't listen to what they have to say, they're great, funny and entertaining, but they're pretty bad at games.
Yeah, me too, "fun" means nothing in a review imo.
I'm pretty sure that Edge means with "distorted concept of value" (if it wasn't Edge pelase correct me) that it should be more meaningful, instead of more content, but this is something you only care when you play through a game once and move on, when you play it to master the system, meaning gets lost and you'll never get the experience you had in your first playthrough again, so it becomes all about gameplay, even in story-centered games. Replay value through content may not be that well received in the citizen kane state of videogames these days, but for this kind of game, I don't want meaning, I want content, I want replayability.
Again, I don't blame reviewers for the lack of understanding of the game's mechanics or whatever, they simply don't have the time, even if they wish they had (some places are just straight up horrible at the game, like the IGN guy failing to draw a straight line), you just have to keep that in mind when you read reviews. I love GiantBomb, they're incredible, but if I'm interested in the gameplay part of a game, I sure as hell won't listen to what they have to say, they're great, funny and entertaining, but they're pretty bad at games.
Yeah, me too, "fun" means nothing in a review imo.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
LOL. I know. It's a well respected publication in the UK.
As a former game journalist, I must say: it's terrible to make reviews!
While you get to play shit before it is released, you have to play it fast, you don't have time to enjoy, to appreciate, to understand, to have fun... I quit when I noticed that being a reviewr took all the fun away.
And I'm not telling that I'm not critic anymore, but I just play it on my way, in my time. That makes all the difference.
While you get to play shit before it is released, you have to play it fast, you don't have time to enjoy, to appreciate, to understand, to have fun... I quit when I noticed that being a reviewr took all the fun away.
And I'm not telling that I'm not critic anymore, but I just play it on my way, in my time. That makes all the difference.
Sure. But then they aren't really telling you what the experience is like, they are describing what they did. Think about how you describe games you love to friends. It certainly isn't like that.
(I hope...) That is why we get so much more out of threads like OTs or comments on twitter. It is people describing what they enjoy/don't enjoy. Maybe my POV is different on the non-dev side of the coin, but I hope that makes sense.
This, I just needed to login and quote this. For every game, but this one is just as important. Not enough people think this. I stopped play videogames 3 years ago because they stopped being fun. I came back to games this spring looking at some of the fun stuff on the horizon. If I am not having fun, I am not playing the game.
Great thing about this game, there is a demo, I know I am not good at it, but even after 5 plays it is fun. I want to figure it out. I will buy this and have fun with it.
Simple concept this "fun" you talk about. Too many miss the point.
It is not about validating your own opinion or fun. It's about the fact that sometimes some games that are really interesting/niche games (ZombiU, W101) are getting lower grades just because they are different (horror survivor vs. shoot 'em up, innovative controls vs. classic controls). And this hurts they sales (that anyhow have a lower basis to start with given the niche part), because there are people that trust the gaming sites enough to handle them the management of their gaming money. And this hurts the diversity. I would really hate to see in the future just games made to check all the "must have" things to get a +90 on metacritic.
Edit: it seems that the European gaming press appreciate more the creativity and the creators that try to get out of the normal path. Makes sense somehow, if we consider the games being an art, making a parallel with the cinema.
Another example of why I think reviews shouldn't matter that much when it comes to gameplay focused games is the depth that gets discovered by the community.
Do you think reviewers knew about the DHC Glitch when they reviewed MVC3? TAC infinites for UMVC3? Sideraves, starraves and guard flying for DMC4? Jump cancelling and it's implications for DMC3?
Those things didn't even existed when they were reviewed, and they matter a lot for those games. Reviews are more about the "cinematic" aspect of those games, since they can't dedicate the time required for an in-depth analysis the game's fans would care about, they're more torwards the mainstream audience that wouldn't go after this depth even if it's already discovered by the time they buy the game. The exception would be DOTA 2 since most reviewers had the time to play it for hundreds of hours before the actual release.
Do you think reviewers knew about the DHC Glitch when they reviewed MVC3? TAC infinites for UMVC3? Sideraves, starraves and guard flying for DMC4? Jump cancelling and it's implications for DMC3?
Those things didn't even existed when they were reviewed, and they matter a lot for those games. Reviews are more about the "cinematic" aspect of those games, since they can't dedicate the time required for an in-depth analysis the game's fans would care about, they're more torwards the mainstream audience that wouldn't go after this depth even if it's already discovered by the time they buy the game. The exception would be DOTA 2 since most reviewers had the time to play it for hundreds of hours before the actual release.
4news.it 95/100
"Even if hard at the start, going on and mastering gameplay elements is rewarding, it's something you can't find in today's market, filled with games that will keep your hand until the very last moment of your adventure. A must buy for everyone, a new masterpiece for Nintendo's Console has arrived"
http://www.4news.it/15854-recensione...derful-101.php
"Even if hard at the start, going on and mastering gameplay elements is rewarding, it's something you can't find in today's market, filled with games that will keep your hand until the very last moment of your adventure. A must buy for everyone, a new masterpiece for Nintendo's Console has arrived"
http://www.4news.it/15854-recensione...derful-101.php
You're totally right. And even our opiniion can change along the way.
My first impression of SFIV was not very good and it is one of my favorite games in this gen.
MvC3 is the opposite, I loved it when it was released, hated 1 month later and now I'm starting to like it/understanding it more (playing the vita version lol).
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Sure. But then they aren't really telling you what the experience is like, they are describing what they did. Think about how you describe games you love to friends. It certainly isn't like that.
That is why we get so much more out of threads like OTs or comments on twitter. It is people describing what they enjoy/don't enjoy. Maybe my POV is different on the non-dev side of the coin, but I hope that makes sense.
If I'm gonna say, "hey this movie is awesome!", I'm gonna talk about WHY it was awesome. And if it's a review or impressions, I hope it's more than just surface level comments like "DUDE YOU FIGHT THIS GIANT GORILLA AND YOU TRANSFORM LIKE POWER RANGERS". Suda51 has lots of zany shit in his games, but they're mostly mediocre to play. What's the difference between a Suda 51 game and Platinum one? What makes one more "fun" than the other one? THAT'S what I like to hear about. "It's fun!" doesn't tell me anything. What about it is fun?
Yeah, exactly. Actually, people in general are losing interest in Marvel 3 because of the tech we have now that just makes the game uninteresting, the discovery aspect is out and what became the norm is just boring to play and watch.
I loved SF IV at first, lost interest in AE and I'm starting to get back to it now, I really suck at it though.
Skullgirls was great at first too, completely loved it, but then people found out that the game was actually about long ass touch of death combos and people lost interest again until recently when they released the PC beta and a new rebalance of the game where it becomes more reset oriented, and I love it again
Max Payne 3 for example I enjoyed my first time through, but though cutscenes were way too many and too intrusive, so when I started my second playthrough on arcade mode and realised most of them were unskippable, it killed the game to me, destroyed what would be a great arcade shooter with nice replay value. If I have to judge it as a "cinematic game", it's pretty awful, the gunplay is where it's at imo.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Not to this extent.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
So Edge and Blistered Thumbs are the two guys that played it for an hour and wrote a review. Got it.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
This to me is pretty much the heart of the problem with professional reviews of games media compared to something like music or film. Its easier to take a film in for 2 hours and have time to live with the experience a while before writing about it. When it comes to games the opinions and thoughts of actual customers who buy a game and play it in their home so often have a vastly different tone than publication reviews. Many say it's because regular gamers shell out cash for their games but I think goals are a bigger factor.
A forum poster wants a game to be something worth their time to enjoy as entertainment or hobby, they can live with the game and work it into their daily life. A professional reviewer in a publication setting is too much part of an assembly line. Certain kinds of game experiences are going to go over better with a person in that position.
Echoing another thread, realistically we should see many more games get a mixture of review opinions and scores - a 6 to 9 range would be normal in a more healthy review environment. Read a game impression thread on a forum and you'll see a mix of people from those who are convinced a particular game is utterly broken to those who think it's brilliant. By reading the debate between an actual variety of opinions you may come to see why different people think what they do.
Gameblog (French): 4/5
http://www.gameblog.fr/test_1649_the-wonderful-101-wii-u
http://www.gameblog.fr/test_1649_the-wonderful-101-wii-u
It's because most people just look at the scores
If you read the reviews, everything they write basically indicates that this is a great game for hardcore gamers
I never thought about it, but it makes a lot of sense. Even if they decide to rewatch said film 3 times to get all the nuances of it it'll still take way less time than it does to completely master and beat a character action game, finishing every difficulty, unlocking every move, beating bloody palace/challenge mode/whatever, mastering the controls and the combo system and so on. Actually, in this particular case, watching a movie 3 times and thinking about it is probably still less than just beating The Wonderful 101 once, which is meant to be an introduction to the game, with replays being the real deal (according to Kamiya himself, so it's not like I'm projecting what I expect of this genre, even though it is)