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

Forums - Nintendo - Preview: Yoshi's Woolly World (One more analysis ).

 

Yoshi Woolly World

I want it NOW 77 50.00%
 
It´s so cute, I want to die <3 33 21.43%
 
Let´s be honest, Goty material. 13 8.44%
 
MEH! 15 9.74%
 
Only virgins play this! 5 3.25%
 
My Cats Breath Smells like Cat Food 11 7.14%
 
Total:154
Hynad on 29 April 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Hynad said:


Surely I don't have to explain to you all the factors that affect a game's score?

Ocarina still stands as the highest scoring game in history. Does it mean that no game has ever been better ever since? 

Don't really care, point is that's a silly factor to judge a game by, as are any that don't involve the actual in game content.

But that's the thing. It's totally legitimate to knock some point off for a lack of freshness and inovation.  That's taking the content of the game into account. So I don't see why you see anything wrong in that.





Around the Network
Hynad on 29 April 2015
curl-6 said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Talking about "playing safe"...

I think that a game like NSMBU scoring 84 is supporting my point more than yours.

"Playing it safe" is actually the key point; that's how 2D platformers by Nintendo are seen by many people these days, as them playing safe and living in the past.
Do I agree with that? Not at all.

But it's a sentiment I see very often.


Don't fix what isn't broken, they say. But Nintendo has played it very safe with a lot of their franchises. Zelda, Mario 2D, DKC, Mario Kart, Smash... All iterations that evolve at baby step pace. They're still greatly fun. But even if you're a fan of those games, you have to agree that those games haven't progressed that much since the N64, and have been mostly formulaic iterations with added layers of polish, instead of trying to shake things up.



Lonely_Dolphin on 29 April 2015
Hynad said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

Don't really care, point is that's a silly factor to judge a game by, as are any that don't involve the actual in game content.

But that's the thing. It's totally legitimate to knock some point off for a lack of freshness and inovation.  That's taking the content of the game into account. So I don't see why you see anything wrong in that.


"freshness" and "innovation" do not automatically make a good game.



Hynad on 29 April 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Hynad said:

But that's the thing. It's totally legitimate to knock some point off for a lack of freshness and inovation.  That's taking the content of the game into account. So I don't see why you see anything wrong in that.


"freshness" and "innovation" do not automatically make a good game.

Being stagnant doesn't warrant a score higher than what came before either.

You seem to be doing your best to not get the point. Getting frustrated or annoyed at how a game is received diffently by reviewers is a tad silly. The Nintendo games that have been mentioned so far all received good scores when all is said and done. So I don't get why you seem to expect every game to get higher scores than the last one as if you'd expect them to one day score of 100. -__-



curl-6 on 29 April 2015
Hynad said:
curl-6 said:

"Playing it safe" is actually the key point; that's how 2D platformers by Nintendo are seen by many people these days, as them playing safe and living in the past.
Do I agree with that? Not at all.

But it's a sentiment I see very often.


Playing it safe with a winning formula, where gameplay is has been fun even if it hadn't evolved much over the last few decades doesn't mean the game is bad. 
Don't fix what isn't broken, they say. But Nintendo has played it very safe with a lot of their franchises. Zelda, Mario 2D, DKC, Mario Kart... All iterations that evolve at baby step pace. They're still greatly fun. But even if you're a fan of those games, you have to agree that those games haven't progressed that much since the N64, and have been mostly formulaic iterations with added layers of polish, instead of trying to shake things up.

While I did think Retro's take on DKC was quite a shake-up compared to Rare's SNES titles, I generally agree. It certainly doesn't make them bad; hell, some of the best games out there are just refinements of old formulas executed brilliantly, but I do think that most gamers are less enthused with the idea of spending retail price on a 2D platformer than they would have  been last gen.



Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 29 April 2015
Hynad said:

Playing it safe with a winning formula, where gameplay is has been fun even if it hadn't evolved much over the last few decades doesn't mean the game is bad. 
Don't fix what isn't broken, they say. But Nintendo has played it very safe with a lot of their franchises. Zelda, Mario 2D, DKC, Mario Kart... All iterations that evolve at baby step pace. They're still greatly fun. But even if you're a fan of those games, you have to agree that those games haven't progressed that much since the N64, and have been mostly formulaic iterations with added layers of polish, instead of trying to shake things up.


And that's good because we don't need more garbage like Sticker Star and Mario Party 10.



Samus Aran on 29 April 2015
Hynad said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

Don't really care, point is that's a silly factor to judge a game by, as are any that don't involve the actual in game content.

But that's the thing. It's totally legitimate to knock some point off for a lack of freshness and inovation.  That's taking the content of the game into account. So I don't see why you see anything wrong in that.

The problem is that critics aren't consistent with this as games like CoD and Assasins Creed come out YEARLY and still score pretty high, even when they're broken.

Compare Gamespot's review of DKC: TF with the CoD game that came out that year.



Hynad on 29 April 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Hynad said:

Playing it safe with a winning formula, where gameplay is has been fun even if it hadn't evolved much over the last few decades doesn't mean the game is bad. 
Don't fix what isn't broken, they say. But Nintendo has played it very safe with a lot of their franchises. Zelda, Mario 2D, DKC, Mario Kart... All iterations that evolve at baby step pace. They're still greatly fun. But even if you're a fan of those games, you have to agree that those games haven't progressed that much since the N64, and have been mostly formulaic iterations with added layers of polish, instead of trying to shake things up.


And that's good because we don't need more garbage like Sticker Star and Mario Party 10.


That's good? Don't you trust in Nintendo being able to shake things up AND make those games still be awesome?

They have to stick to their formulas?



Hynad on 29 April 2015
Samus Aran said:
Hynad said:

But that's the thing. It's totally legitimate to knock some point off for a lack of freshness and inovation.  That's taking the content of the game into account. So I don't see why you see anything wrong in that.

The problem is that critics aren't consistent with this as games like CoD and Assasins Creed come out YEARLY and still score pretty high, even when they're broken.

Compare Gamespot's review of DKC: TF with the CoD game that came out that year.

All games reviewed by different reviewers. So that's a moot point at best.



Samus Aran on 29 April 2015
Hynad said:
Samus Aran said:

The problem is that critics aren't consistent with this as games like CoD and Assasins Creed come out YEARLY and still score pretty high, even when they're broken.

Compare Gamespot's review of DKC: TF with the CoD game that came out that year.

All games reviewed by different reviewers. So that's a moot point at best.

Money talks you mean.

Why are reviewers in general more lax about a yearly franchise that is as stale as old bread than a 2.5D platformer that comes out every 4 years at best? Doesn't make sense.

If freshness and innovation are truly as important as you claim then CoD shouldn't score higher than 50% on metacritic.

We're not talking about one review outlet here, but over a 100 outlets. That's enough to constitute a trend.