By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superhippy420 on 17 February 2014
Edit Thread

So after looking at the reviews it's become pretty clear what is going on out there with reviews of this game.

80-100 - Reviewers took the game for what it is, which is a sequel to DKCR. In that regard they thought it did everything the original did, only better. Some reviewers knocked a little bit off because it wasn't totally original, which is fair, but also said that it is a great challenging platformer that does the franchise justice.

60-79 - Reviewers were looking for Nintendo to re-invent the wheel. Many clearly just don't like DK's slippery controls, which has always been a staple of the series. Many felt the game's difficulty just got in the way and made it unenjoyable. The Gamespot review was just all over the place. (Said a plus was challenging boss battles, but that a negative was the lack of save spot in boss battles, little contradicting.)

Here's my takeaways.

- Music - Nearly every review didn't even mention it. Just ridiculous. GTA V comes out and almost every review raved about all of its radio stations. TLOU had great sound effects and it was noted in nearly every review. The fact that nearly every review overlooked the soundtrack is a little disturbing in my opinion. Go watch Star Wars without the musical score and I promise you now it won't be nearly as good. Same goes for a game like Zelda. Play the game on mute for 15 hours, it's just not the same.

- The knocking for lack of total originality is pretty weak. These are the same sites that were giving every Call of Duty no less then an 82, when it was clearly rehashed for years on end. Same goes for FIFA. I like FIFA too, but if the standard is going to be a big drop off every time the game is not totally unique then it should have a metascore this year of about a 65, but instead it is taken at face value and it is a 85 - 87. Same goes for Assassin's Creed, and honestly Grand Theft Auto as well. Did GTA V do anything groundbreaking? No it took the same formula as the prior 4 - 5 games and made it even better. Does that mean it should have gotten an 70 instead? I don't think so, but the double standard is pretty evident.

- The difficulty level was the biggest factor in both the high and low scores. This to me was the bottom line. When I read the 90+ reviews like on IGN and Destructoid they were loving the difficulty level. I could just tell that the reviewers really appreciated a 2D platformer that kicked your ass around a little bit, and forced you to learn patterns like in the old Mega Man games. The low scores like on Gamespot, didn't appreciate it, and I could tell it took away from their enjoyment. The Gamespot reviewer specifically said that he didn't like how you couldn't zip by obstacles and just watch them fall as you ran by. The low scores were looking for another NSMBU or Rayman Legends, and instead they got a game that was tough, so instead of swallowing their pride and just saying the game was hard, they decided to bash it instead and say the game was poorly designed. That is the only explanation to me why the low scores were saying the level design was not very good and the high scores said it was great. To me this is awesome. I wanted a tough game. Games are way too easy now.