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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Kirby Star Allies Bombs With Critics

Yeah I think you need to look up the actual definition of a poor score because this isn’t it.



Around the Network

73 is not bombing.



You have a very different definition of bombing.

Anyway, yea its a shame its not on par with the better kirby games, but its a good game.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Shiken said:
73 is not bombing. 70+ is a GOOD game. 80+ is a GREAT game, and 90+ is a MUST PLAY game.

People have such a twisted and sad view on what these scores mean. Kirby did fine with critics, some fans just do not understand the concept of a 10 point score system (which is why it needs to be done away with because there are even critics that do not get it or abuse it).

If comparing it to other games, perhaps, but 73% stinks for a Kirby game. Historically the mainline franchise does much higher. Considering this is the first major console release in around 6 years, it should have done 85% at the least.

Pokemon is a critically comparable series to Kirby. No one would be happy if the mainline debut of Pokemon on Switch did 73-78%. Even if it is considered "good" by how the scale should be, most would consider it a bomb. Sure you'll get the apologists who try to suggest "How is 73% bombing? That's a good score." But relativity and expectation are everything, and a 73%-78% would be a bomb.

Basically, what I am saying is that with the "good" label, that is still below adequacy given the franchise; a mainline Kirby game SHOULD be nothing less than great. The first mainline Kirby game on home console in 6 years should be a must play; especially after the rise in expectations from the Wii era.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 04 April 2018

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

If comparing it to other games, perhaps, but 73% stinks for a Kirby game. Historically the mainline franchise does much higher. Considering this is the first major console release in around 6 years, it should have done 85% at the least.

Pokemon is a critically comparable series to Kirby. No one would be happy if the mainline debut of Pokemon on Switch did 73-78%. Even if it is considered "good" by how the scale should be, most would consider it a bomb. Sure you'll get the apologists who try to suggest "How is 73% bombing? That's a good score." But relativity and expectation are everything, and a 73%-78% would be a bomb.

Basically, what I am saying is that with the "good" label, that is still below adequacy given the franchise; a mainline Kirby game SHOULD be nothing less than great. The first mainline Kirby game on home console in 6 years should be a must play; especially after the rise in expectations from the Wii era.

How are Kirby and Pokemon "critically comparable?" Aside from the fact that their scores are usually in the same range, give or take multiple points, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion in order to use it to support your already wobbly main point.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Shiken said:
73 is not bombing. 70+ is a GOOD game. 80+ is a GREAT game, and 90+ is a MUST PLAY game.

People have such a twisted and sad view on what these scores mean. Kirby did fine with critics, some fans just do not understand the concept of a 10 point score system (which is why it needs to be done away with because there are even critics that do not get it or abuse it).

If comparing it to other games, perhaps, but 73% stinks for a Kirby game. Historically the mainline franchise does much higher. Considering this is the first major console release in around 6 years, it should have done 85% at the least.

Pokemon is a critically comparable series to Kirby. No one would be happy if the mainline debut of Pokemon on Switch did 73-78%. Even if it is considered "good" by how the scale should be, most would consider it a bomb. Sure you'll get the apologists who try to suggest "How is 73% bombing? That's a good score." But relativity and expectation are everything, and a 73%-78% would be a bomb.

Basically, what I am saying is that with the "good" label, that is still below adequacy given the franchise; a mainline Kirby game SHOULD be nothing less than great. The first mainline Kirby game on home console in 6 years should be a must play; especially after the rise in expectations from the Wii era.

So to you, not as good as it could of been/not as good as predecessors automatically equals bomb regardless of how good the game still is. Thankfully most don't think that way as evidenced by the responses in this thread aswell as the sales of Star Allies being on par with it's predecessors despite supposedly being a "bomb" in comparison.



I think it should have scored lower than that and not because it's a bad game, but because games that are that easy to beat should be docked for it. If you're going to release something that is aimed at people above grade school, make sure that the BASE GAME is challenging enough for adults. I think that is the one reason why I have never really gotten into Kirby... it's easier to beat than a housewife from the nineteenth century.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
Jumpin said:

If comparing it to other games, perhaps, but 73% stinks for a Kirby game. Historically the mainline franchise does much higher. Considering this is the first major console release in around 6 years, it should have done 85% at the least.

Pokemon is a critically comparable series to Kirby. No one would be happy if the mainline debut of Pokemon on Switch did 73-78%. Even if it is considered "good" by how the scale should be, most would consider it a bomb. Sure you'll get the apologists who try to suggest "How is 73% bombing? That's a good score." But relativity and expectation are everything, and a 73%-78% would be a bomb.

Basically, what I am saying is that with the "good" label, that is still below adequacy given the franchise; a mainline Kirby game SHOULD be nothing less than great. The first mainline Kirby game on home console in 6 years should be a must play; especially after the rise in expectations from the Wii era.

So to you, not as good as it could of been/not as good as predecessors automatically equals bomb regardless of how good the game still is. Thankfully most don't think that way as evidenced by the responses in this thread aswell as the sales of Star Allies being on par with it's predecessors despite supposedly being a "bomb" in comparison.

Because "Fuck logic." I guess.





Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

People saying 70 is "good" lol - anything below 75 is an outright bomb, 75-80 is poor and 80-85 is average. Kirby bombed. Lets be real. I was excited for this game because I was a big fan of kirby superstar growing up, but as soon as I saw the scores come in I stopped caring about this game.