Quantcast
Battletoads Gamescom Gameplay (Looks God Awful!)

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Battletoads Gamescom Gameplay (Looks God Awful!)

I have close to no knowledge of the original, other than the AVGN episode which made the multiplayer look like a nightmare, but I thought the dialogue and artstyle in the clip seemed pretty charming.

And then it kept going...and going...and oh so slowly.

Maybe the final game will look better, but right now looks extremely sluggish and unfun. I'm curious how much of that would be fixed just increasing speed though.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

Yeah the art style is awful imo and I keep hoping that maybe the gameplay will save it if it ends up being fun enough to look past the awful art style, but then the gameplay looks way too slow to the point where it would be more like a chore to finish because of how slow it is. Like, the potential is there for something that seems like it could be fun but why is it so sloooooooooow. I never played the originals but even watching some random videos of them I can see how much faster those were, why on earth did they change it all so much.

I'm still gonna hold out hope and wait until the full game is released before I fully judge it, but god damn this has been nothing but disappointment ever since they finally showed this game to the public. Went from being one of my most hyped when it was announced at E3 2018 to complete let down. We finally get another Battletoads game after 24 years and this is what we get, and now if it doesn't due well as a result of being so different from the previous games for all we know it might be put on ice for decades again.



Zoombael said:
pokoko said:

Are you being pedantic on purpose?  We're talking about a series where the first game is by far the best known and upon which everything else is based.  Even one of the games you mentioned is basically a remake and the other was a bomb that almost no one played.  The original game is the baseline for the franchise, like it or not.  

Nope. The franchise is the "baseline". You missed the point by a mile. Read my first reply to you, you ignored its essence: The major reason "fans" are dissapointed of the new BT, is because its generic artstyle and tone (PC Dark Queen) and gameplay is out of line. Wether you like the original games or not, how they play, how (un)successful they were, is irrelevant in this discussion.

It's more like you missed the point, or perhaps you're just trying to confuse the point because you don't like it. The games, in my opinion, were never anything special, which means that any follow-up was never going to be special.  Easy concept for most people to understand.  "But ... but what about Battlemaniacs," means nothing when it was basically the same damn game.  Your point isn't my point, which means you're the one that had it fly over your head.  



DonFerrari said:

I'm curious of the metrics of success the Kinect games and SoT are held to, don't remember any critical acclaim or sales blockbuster.

3 Kinect Sports, talk about great games and freedom to choose Kinect.

Kinect Sports 1 - 6.2M (on the hype of Kinect, was it bundled?) - Meta 73

Season 2 - 2.33M - Meta 66

Rivals - 620k (big success I'm sure) - Meta 60

SoT 1M sales and 69 Meta.

Well if Sony and Nintendo were to be held to such high standards nothing they do could be considered success.

Umm why are you even looking at physical sales? The game is free on Game Pass and is also a digital game. We know that game has recently had 2m players return since the Anniversary Update and has had 8.2m players at least try it out. Not a bad number for a game no one is interested in. SOT is a solid title weather you like it or not.

Clearly Rare were doing okay with Kinect and keeping themselves afloat. Kinect Adventures also sold over 20m copies with a review score of 73 (Yes it was bundled with Kinect but a solid title none the less) Kinect Sports wasn't bundled from memory, that was Kinect Adventures, both scoring a 73. To put that in perspective, 73 meta is what Killzone Shadowfall scored by Sony's Gruella Games.

MS also hasn't had a say with Battletoads or Sea of Thieves so this is all on Rare and there internal decisions. 

JWeinCom said:

And he had to ask how looking at something can make you feel something.  Guess he hasn't seen that special guy or gal yet.

^ Is this directed at me? Because you have confused me. 

Looking at something does not mean you can feel something haha. You can only assume what something feels like with your eyes but never actually feel it. I am no doctor but you can thank me anyway. You know what they say about assuming.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 25 August 2019

TruckOSaurus said:

First of all, apart from both being cartoony Battletoads and Cuphead don't look anything alike. Also, even if the game had the exact same artstyle as Cuphead I'd still say it looks like a generic beat'em up with close to no platforming elements which are what I like so much about the NES game.

They announced it has multiple genres in it including platforming in the trailer. 

Here's the list below..

Bosses
Adventures
Fighting
Platforming
Puzzles
Teamwork
Racing
Combos
Special Moves
Morphing
Challenges
Lists
Combat
Space Battles

^I bolded what can be a genre while the unbolded is more what you can do in the game.

JRPGfan said:

No it really cant...

Cuphead emolates the retro cartoon feeling and pulls it off amazingly.
plus its gameplay works as it is.

Battletoads looks like a cheap flash game.... and the gameplay looks "off" to say it mildly, it doesnt even feel like a battletoads game.

Its a "night & day" differnce between the two.
You might think they both are aiming for the same thing, but the differnce is how well they pull it off then.

Like theres clearly a massive quality differnce between the two.
Battletoads did not get anywhere near the Tender love & care (tlc) of Cuphead.... and it shows.

Both Cuphead and Battletoads are hand drawn and looking at the two picks I posted before, its funny to read people say one looks like garbage and the other looks great. They both look like well drawn games. I think you are more disappointed that you don't accept the look of the Battletoads rather than it being drawn good or bad.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 25 August 2019

It's so slow. You have to play the video at 1.5x speed before it starts feeling 'normal'.



Azzanation said:
KLXVER said:

No, I don't. Just like someone sees a trailer for a movie and likes it and then sees a trailer of a movie they don't like. Are they being unfair to one of the movies then?

Its pretty obvious, To say one game looks like complete garbage and say the other game looks gorgeous, considering they both opt for the same thing is what sounds weird to me. Basically, its like looking at two identical picture frames and saying one looks like crap and the other looks amazing. Its basically the comparison I am making here.

If Battletoads looks like something from Newgrounds or some cheap Indy phone game than same can be said for Cuphead. But no one will bash Cuphead's art style. Like I said in my pic comparison. Its the community in a nutshell. It says a lot about the people in here. Double standards is huge.

But cuphead achieves in what it want to opt for(while batlletoad looks rushed and none challenging)

All i see is a cheap fastly made cartoon,and the gameplay does not captivate me.



Immersiveunreality said:
Azzanation said:

Its pretty obvious, To say one game looks like complete garbage and say the other game looks gorgeous, considering they both opt for the same thing is what sounds weird to me. Basically, its like looking at two identical picture frames and saying one looks like crap and the other looks amazing. Its basically the comparison I am making here.

If Battletoads looks like something from Newgrounds or some cheap Indy phone game than same can be said for Cuphead. But no one will bash Cuphead's art style. Like I said in my pic comparison. Its the community in a nutshell. It says a lot about the people in here. Double standards is huge.

But cuphead achieves in what it want to opt for(while batlletoad looks rushed and none challenging)

All i see is a cheap fastly made cartoon,and the gameplay does not captivate me.

As if all cartoon looked the same were equally as good just because they are cartoon should also be another point to consider. Also some games benefit from one look while others don't.

Okami for me would probably look and feel worse if done today with photorealism than what it looked originally on PS2. But Days Gone would be trash if cell shaded.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm curious of the metrics of success the Kinect games and SoT are held to, don't remember any critical acclaim or sales blockbuster.

3 Kinect Sports, talk about great games and freedom to choose Kinect.

Kinect Sports 1 - 6.2M (on the hype of Kinect, was it bundled?) - Meta 73

Season 2 - 2.33M - Meta 66

Rivals - 620k (big success I'm sure) - Meta 60

SoT 1M sales and 69 Meta.

Well if Sony and Nintendo were to be held to such high standards nothing they do could be considered success.

Umm why are you even looking at physical sales? The game is free on Game Pass and is also a digital game. We know that game has recently had 2m players return since the Anniversary Update and has had 8.2m players at least try it out. Not a bad number for a game no one is interested in. SOT is a solid title weather you like it or not.

Clearly Rare were doing okay with Kinect and keeping themselves afloat. Kinect Adventures also sold over 20m copies with a review score of 73 (Yes it was bundled with Kinect but a solid title none the less) Kinect Sports wasn't bundled from memory, that was Kinect Adventures, both scoring a 73. To put that in perspective, 73 meta is what Killzone Shadowfall scored by Sony's Gruella Games.

MS also hasn't had a say with Battletoads or Sea of Thieves so this is all on Rare and there internal decisions. 

JWeinCom said:

And he had to ask how looking at something can make you feel something.  Guess he hasn't seen that special guy or gal yet.

^ Is this directed at me? Because you have confused me. 

Looking at something does not mean you can feel something haha. You can only assume what something feels like with your eyes but never actually feel it. I am no doctor but you can thank me anyway. You know what they say about assuming.

I have to ask this question again.  Are you aware that words can have more than one usage?  You seem to have trouble with this concept.



To see someone comparing this to cuphead in terms of animation really does open up a whole other can of worms in terms of rose tinted goggles.

In its current state the only time this and cuphead should be in the same sentence is if that goes something like "this looks nothing like cuphead".



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8