By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - DKC: Tropical Freeze Review Thread (81 on metacritic)

DucksUnlimited on 17 February 2014
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:

Which site included not being Metroid as part of their criteria?

First four paragraphs of this review:

"The first big Wii U release of the year is a new game from the makers of Metroid Prime, but is another 2D platformer really a good idea?

If there’s one thing the Wii U needs at the moment it’s probably not another platform game. When Tropical Freeze was first announced there were howls of protest, not just because the game seemed an unhelpful indulgence but because it tied up Nintendo’s only Western developer – Metroid Prime creator Retro Studios – on a game that seemingly any number of their Japanese studios could’ve made instead.

It’s rather like the chief engineer on the Titanic suddenly deciding he doesn’t want to work on fixing the engines, but would rather show off his skills as an amateur violinist by popping on deck to join the band.

Since Retro already made Donkey Kong Country Returns for the original Wii it’s obvious they are indeed highly skilled at creating 2D platformers, but we still struggle to understand why they thought this game would be a good use of their talents and resources during Nintendo’s darkest hour."

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/17/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review-monkey-business-4307342/

 It seems to me like a brief aside about the business sense of tasking Retro with another DKC, not something that has an actual influence on the score. Once they get into actually reviewing the game it is never brought up, and it isn't mentioned on the pros/cons list either. Mentioning that they're not sure another DKC game was a good decision for the Wii U =/= reviewing it based on not being a Metroid game. That's just reaching. Still, it is kind of out of place in a review. It probably belongs in its own article so as to not give people the wrong idea.

I would argue that using the first 4 of your 18 paragraph review to complain about what the game isn't, isn't really an aside.  More of a core complaint that seemed to affect the whole review.  Especially when it comes up again at the end, "...does absolutely nothing to move forward...the case for buying a Wii U.

In Short: A highly competent 2D platformer, but one utterly devoid of any new ideas or any reason to buy a Wii U in order to play it."

By the way, this was the first and only review I read on the game.  I just picked out a single low review to see if what Sundin13 said was true.  And it was.

You're welcome to argue that. But there's no actual reviewing going on when they mention it at the beginning, nor the end. That pretty much falls in line with the definition of an aside. You're assuming that mentioning what they believe its effect on the market will be is proof that that is influential to the review score. There's really no basis for that assumption.

You are welcome to just ignore what was deemed important enough about this game to write about in the review.  I will not.

Ignore? I never said that it never existed. I said that using it to reach the conclusion that they intentionally gave the game a lower score due to it not being Metroid is a stretch.

If you have to pretend I'm doing things that I'm not, that doesn't really bode well for your argument.



Around the Network
teigaga on 17 February 2014

The negativity seems to come from the fact that the game is unwanted lol

I'm one of those who was really annoyed when this game got announced, but after watching GTs video review, I'll admit it looks like a great platformer.



umegames on 17 February 2014
superhippy420 said:
AgentZorn said:
A good game, but some knocked some points down for being more of the same. Some reviewers go on a tangent about the game not being what the Wii U needs. In other words, they wanted Metroid.


DKCR sold more then Metroid Prime 1,2, and 3 combined.  I would love a new Metroid too, but Metroid has never been a big seller and it never will.   It's a 2D platformer that Nintendo made and should be reviewed as such.  I reviewers knocking Forza 5 because it isn't Metroid.  Or reviewers knocking Killzone because it isn't Uncharted.  That's just stupid.  It's the same double standard that people try to hold Nintendo to.  It's the Wonderful 101 all over again.  People complain that Nintendo should make new IP's and everything they do is a rehash.  They they make something new.  Everyone pretends that it doesn't exist.  The state of gaming right now is sorry as fuck.

everything about this is 100% epic truth. especially that last sentence.



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbchUmHiEvZ1m3b9HgW5syg

VIDEO GAME MUSIC MASHUPS

Metrium on 17 February 2014

A DonkeyKong game being bashed for playing like a DonkeyKong game... Mario games being bashed for playing like Mario games and Zelda games being bashed for playing Zelda games... Seems these kind of things happen only to Nintendo. Only Nintendo have IPs thats are critisized for playing like previous games of that said IP. I never heard Ubisoft being blamed for making Rayman or AC games like previous Rayman or AC games. I never heard of Madden, CoD or Need for Speed being blamed for being like their predecesors. Yet these games are yearly while we had 2 DK games in 10years.

Why is it that I never heard of a review saying that Rayman Legends was great, but similar to Origins in many ways, therefor 7/10?



 

What?! I can't hear you over all this awsome! - Pyrrhon (Kid Icarus:Uprising)

Final Ultimate Legendary Earth Power Super Max Justice Future Miracle Dream Beautiful Galaxy Big Bang Little Bang Sunrise Starlight Infinite Fabulous Totally Final Wonderful Arrow...FIRE! - Wonder-Red (The Wonderful101)

 

ZyroXZ2 on 17 February 2014

I have to agree with some of the posts I glanced over on my way to page 8, lol...

The review scores are an attempt to reflect the lack of desire for Donkey Kong Country from Retro, rather than a fair look at the game itself.

I'll be reviewing it, and rest assured, while I haven't read or watched any of the reviews (I DID see the Metacritic score, though), I have an appreciation for what Retro has chosen to do!



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
Around the Network
tilkoboy on 19 February 2014

Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze is #1 on Amazon France, Germany, and Spain !

http://playeressence.com/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-is-1-on-amazon-france-germany-and-spain/



theRepublic on 23 February 2014
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
 

Which site included not being Metroid as part of their criteria?

First four paragraphs of this review:

"The first big Wii U release of the year is a new game from the makers of Metroid Prime, but is another 2D platformer really a good idea?

If there’s one thing the Wii U needs at the moment it’s probably not another platform game. When Tropical Freeze was first announced there were howls of protest, not just because the game seemed an unhelpful indulgence but because it tied up Nintendo’s only Western developer – Metroid Prime creator Retro Studios – on a game that seemingly any number of their Japanese studios could’ve made instead.

It’s rather like the chief engineer on the Titanic suddenly deciding he doesn’t want to work on fixing the engines, but would rather show off his skills as an amateur violinist by popping on deck to join the band.

Since Retro already made Donkey Kong Country Returns for the original Wii it’s obvious they are indeed highly skilled at creating 2D platformers, but we still struggle to understand why they thought this game would be a good use of their talents and resources during Nintendo’s darkest hour."

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/17/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review-monkey-business-4307342/

 It seems to me like a brief aside about the business sense of tasking Retro with another DKC, not something that has an actual influence on the score. Once they get into actually reviewing the game it is never brought up, and it isn't mentioned on the pros/cons list either. Mentioning that they're not sure another DKC game was a good decision for the Wii U =/= reviewing it based on not being a Metroid game. That's just reaching. Still, it is kind of out of place in a review. It probably belongs in its own article so as to not give people the wrong idea.

I would argue that using the first 4 of your 18 paragraph review to complain about what the game isn't, isn't really an aside.  More of a core complaint that seemed to affect the whole review.  Especially when it comes up again at the end, "...does absolutely nothing to move forward...the case for buying a Wii U.

In Short: A highly competent 2D platformer, but one utterly devoid of any new ideas or any reason to buy a Wii U in order to play it."

By the way, this was the first and only review I read on the game.  I just picked out a single low review to see if what Sundin13 said was true.  And it was.

You're welcome to argue that. But there's no actual reviewing going on when they mention it at the beginning, nor the end. That pretty much falls in line with the definition of an aside. You're assuming that mentioning what they believe its effect on the market will be is proof that that is influential to the review score. There's really no basis for that assumption.

You are welcome to just ignore what was deemed important enough about this game to write about in the review.  I will not.

Ignore? I never said that it never existed. I said that using it to reach the conclusion that they intentionally gave the game a lower score due to it not being Metroid is a stretch.

If you have to pretend I'm doing things that I'm not, that doesn't really bode well for your argument.

How does it bode for your agrument that this reviewer brought up a completely irrelavant game in a different genre that has no business being in a comparison?  Readying through the rest of this thread, I am not the one making a stretch here.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

DucksUnlimited on 23 February 2014
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:
 

Which site included not being Metroid as part of their criteria?

First four paragraphs of this review:

"The first big Wii U release of the year is a new game from the makers of Metroid Prime, but is another 2D platformer really a good idea?

If there’s one thing the Wii U needs at the moment it’s probably not another platform game. When Tropical Freeze was first announced there were howls of protest, not just because the game seemed an unhelpful indulgence but because it tied up Nintendo’s only Western developer – Metroid Prime creator Retro Studios – on a game that seemingly any number of their Japanese studios could’ve made instead.

It’s rather like the chief engineer on the Titanic suddenly deciding he doesn’t want to work on fixing the engines, but would rather show off his skills as an amateur violinist by popping on deck to join the band.

Since Retro already made Donkey Kong Country Returns for the original Wii it’s obvious they are indeed highly skilled at creating 2D platformers, but we still struggle to understand why they thought this game would be a good use of their talents and resources during Nintendo’s darkest hour."

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/17/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review-monkey-business-4307342/

 It seems to me like a brief aside about the business sense of tasking Retro with another DKC, not something that has an actual influence on the score. Once they get into actually reviewing the game it is never brought up, and it isn't mentioned on the pros/cons list either. Mentioning that they're not sure another DKC game was a good decision for the Wii U =/= reviewing it based on not being a Metroid game. That's just reaching. Still, it is kind of out of place in a review. It probably belongs in its own article so as to not give people the wrong idea.

I would argue that using the first 4 of your 18 paragraph review to complain about what the game isn't, isn't really an aside.  More of a core complaint that seemed to affect the whole review.  Especially when it comes up again at the end, "...does absolutely nothing to move forward...the case for buying a Wii U.

In Short: A highly competent 2D platformer, but one utterly devoid of any new ideas or any reason to buy a Wii U in order to play it."

By the way, this was the first and only review I read on the game.  I just picked out a single low review to see if what Sundin13 said was true.  And it was.

You're welcome to argue that. But there's no actual reviewing going on when they mention it at the beginning, nor the end. That pretty much falls in line with the definition of an aside. You're assuming that mentioning what they believe its effect on the market will be is proof that that is influential to the review score. There's really no basis for that assumption.

You are welcome to just ignore what was deemed important enough about this game to write about in the review.  I will not.

Ignore? I never said that it never existed. I said that using it to reach the conclusion that they intentionally gave the game a lower score due to it not being Metroid is a stretch.

If you have to pretend I'm doing things that I'm not, that doesn't really bode well for your argument.

How does it bode for your agrument that this reviewer brought up a completely irrelavant game in a different genre that has no business being in a comparison?  Readying through the rest of this thread, I am not the one making a stretch here.

Many reviewers brought up Uncharted when reviewing TLOU. Many brought up KI when reviewing Strider. Comparing multiple works from the same devs is nothing new.

And now you're seemingly using ad populum to try and support your argument, which is even further evidence of how weak and unsupported it is. If you're not even aware of the issues with such a basic logical fallacy then I'm done wasting my time here. Actual evidence clearly isn't something you deem necessary.



theRepublic on 23 February 2014
DucksUnlimited said:

Many reviewers brought up Uncharted when reviewing TLOU. Many brought up KI when reviewing Strider. Comparing multiple works from the same devs is nothing new.

And now you're seemingly using ad populum to try and support your argument, which is even further evidence of how weak and unsupported it is. If you're not even aware of the issues with such a basic logical fallacy then I'm done wasting my time here. Actual evidence clearly isn't something you deem necessary.

Out of the two of us, I am the only one that actually quoted the review.  I've supported my statements with fact.  You have yet to post a single shread of evidence.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

DucksUnlimited on 24 February 2014
theRepublic said:
DucksUnlimited said:

Many reviewers brought up Uncharted when reviewing TLOU. Many brought up KI when reviewing Strider. Comparing multiple works from the same devs is nothing new.

And now you're seemingly using ad populum to try and support your argument, which is even further evidence of how weak and unsupported it is. If you're not even aware of the issues with such a basic logical fallacy then I'm done wasting my time here. Actual evidence clearly isn't something you deem necessary.

Out of the two of us, I am the only one that actually quoted the review.  I've supported my statements with fact.  You have yet to post a single shread of evidence.

Hilarious. You just further demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't need to provide proof. YOU are the one making the claim, not me. All I've said is there isn't sufficient evidence to support your claim. You want me to provide evidence of your lack of evidence? You truly don't understand how this works. And the fact that you think quoting the article is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusions you are is laughable, at best.

Come back with real evidence for your claims or we're done here.