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

Basically the 73 sounds about right for the score based off my experience. "Good" but not outstanding or even that great, especially in single player. The biggest factors for me that brought it down a bit were the complete lack of challenge for the vast majority of the game (think I died like twice in my entire run), the short run of the campaign, and the lack of excitement compared to having multiple people. It's not like the game was broken in any way, it just didn't really go above and beyond in any areas either. Kids would probably enjoy it more, especially if they're playing with another person, but that doesn't mean it should feel lacking for teens or adults which I feel it was.

For my money, most reviewers seem to overate games in general - it's almost as if many are factoring in only the 5-10 and ignoring the first 1-4. I try to keep the first 4 pts in mind and truly rate on a 10 point scale. Many *cough Ign* seem to consider and 8 only "good" while a 7 should actually fall under good.



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network

I don't have a problem with the score it got but anything above 70 is still "good". Maybe if it where the big multi-million dollar budget 3D Mario/Zelda game of the generation, a 73 would be a bomb, but that's not what this is lol. It's your run of the mill 2D Kirby game and it certainly won't be the last one you'll see on Switch either. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Kirby game comes out for Switch as soon as next year or early 2020.

Last edited by Green098 - on 04 April 2018

contestgamer said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

But again, a game's difficulty isn't a flaw outside of the aforementioned scenario, it's part of the genre.

No it's not... Kirby is a platformer, so was Ghouls n Ghosts. The genre doesnt dictate difficulty. It's also extremely easy to fix - Add difficulty levels. Because there is a simple solution to this, it is absolutely OK to criticize Nintendo for not integrating it.

Kirby is an easy platformer, and the developers dictate genre. Why should they strive to make every game challenging n hard when there is cleary room for easy accessible games aswell? Difficulty levels are always good yes, every game that doesn't have them should have em, that's a fair criticism, but criticising the default/intended difficulty isn't. We don't need every game to be difficult, just like we don't need every game to be a shooter, so that shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.

 

Veknoid_Outcast said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

But again, a game's difficulty isn't a flaw outside of the aforementioned scenario, it's part of the genre.

But for some reviewers/consumers the flaw might be built into the genre. I get where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to absolve a game just because it accomplished what it set out to do. 

That's more a difference of taste than a flaw then. I'm not saying Star Allies doesn't have flaws because it most certainly does, just that difficulty isn't one of them.



How is going from around 80 to around 70 considered bombing big time? Seems close enough to what the other games got. Maybe its not the best kirby game ever made, but it looks just fine.

Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards for example got similar scores and epic yarn got much better scores, because of its pretty looks.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

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.

That's the point of the game, very beatable n enjoyable by anyone of any skill level, from 3 year olds to soccer moms to grandpas. If you want a challenging platformer there are plenty of games with that intent out there, but Kirby is ment to be very easy. Star Allies score should only be docked for difficulty if they made it challenging while still claiming it's a standard Kirby game. Anything else and you're just knocking the game for it's genre.

See, that's where I take issue. How can it be enjoyable by anyone of any skill level when some people have a lot of skills and thus, breeze through it in a few hours? These things are sixty dollars. If all I'm going to get is a relaxing, three hour experience where I die like three times, then I'm going to spend my money elsewhere and I'm NOT going to have an enjoyable experience. 

I love the aesthetic of Kirby games. It's very charming and whimsical but much like Odyssey, it's too easy for me. Nintendo has been gradually making most of their games (if not all) just too easy for people like me and I really wish reviewers would dock points for it so people would know before buying. 



Around the Network
AlfredoTurkey said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

That's the point of the game, very beatable n enjoyable by anyone of any skill level, from 3 year olds to soccer moms to grandpas. If you want a challenging platformer there are plenty of games with that intent out there, but Kirby is ment to be very easy. Star Allies score should only be docked for difficulty if they made it challenging while still claiming it's a standard Kirby game. Anything else and you're just knocking the game for it's genre.

See, that's where I take issue. How can it be enjoyable by anyone of any skill level when some people have a lot of skills and thus, breeze through it in a few hours? These things are sixty dollars. If all I'm going to get is a relaxing, three hour experience where I die like three times, then I'm going to spend my money elsewhere and I'm NOT going to have an enjoyable experience. 

I love the aesthetic of Kirby games. It's very charming and whimsical but much like Odyssey, it's too easy for me. Nintendo has been gradually making most of their games (if not all) just too easy for people like me and I really wish reviewers would dock points for it so people would know before buying. 

How can something be enjoyable? Because it's fun, duh! Just because a person is skilled at games doesn't mean they can only enjoy challenging games. A few hours is a bit of an exaggeration, the previous few Kirby games take 12-15 hours to 100% while being very replayable, and only Star Allies is $60. Majority of the series is $30-$40 on handhelds. But going back to Star Allies specifically, content is the biggest issue with the game no doubt. Even as a Kirby fan I don't feel Star Allies is worth $60 as it has less content than it's recent predecessors yet cost significantly more. Still even as one who has plenty of skill, I have had a lot of fun with the game and have put in over 50 hours so far, but again I'm a fan. As this thread points out the score is lower than other Kirby games highlighting this issue (being lack of content, not difficulty, as everyone already knows Nintendo games generally run on the easier side).



I'd also add it will probably be the first kirby game I ever actually buy I actually like that its an easy game. Means my kids will likely be able to complete the game without constantly asking for my help



contestgamer said:
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.

You must be new to this gaming thing.  The problem is a matter of perspective.  For example, there is a website that litterally scores based on 5 being average and 6 being abover ave, and so on up to 10.  The problem here is their score is added to metacritic, where a 7 is a ave/good game and so on, and drags thay score down.  Guess what, your way of thinking just kept you from enjoying a game you may have liked

because you are closed minded from lack of knowledge regarding how flawed the media is.

 

Then look at some of the overrated games out there.  Final Fantasy 13 had graphics and...yeah that it.  It had crappy plot, boring characters, and was fsr too linear for its own good.  Not to mention that horride battle system where you just mash autofight for 90% of all encounters.  BUT it got an 83 on metacritic so it MUST be at least decent right?  And here is a game you would buy and then be let down due to you lack of knowledge about how gaming media works.

 

Heck what youpropsose does not even make any sense.  If an 8 is average  why bother having 10 numbers?  A five star system would be more accurate on that case.  In the old days, 7 was (and still is) a good score.  6 is fair and might be worth playing to some  though a pass for most.  5 is horrible and anything below that is just a degree of how broken the game is.

 

So in the end, you are only limiting yourself by having such a closed minded view on review scores.  Just because you think a number means something does not mean the reviewer feels the same way, and that is the problem.  In a review based on what the reviewer believes your opinion on what the score means is absolutely worthless.  Think about that for a minute and let that sink in.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

NintendoPie 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.

How are Kirby and Pokemon "critically comparable?" Aside from the fact that their scores are usually in the same range,

You answered your own question.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Green098 said:

I don't have a problem with the score it got but anything above 70 is still "good". Maybe if it where the big multi-million dollar budget 3D Mario/Zelda game of the generation, a 73 would be a bomb, but that's not what this is lol. It's your run of the mill 2D Kirby game and it certainly won't be the last one you'll see on Switch either. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Kirby game comes out for Switch as soon as next year or early 2020.

That's not what Kirby is though; no one is expecting a big budget 3D Mario/Zelda 9.5 to 9.7 game.

But it is Kirby, arguably the best co-op 2D platformer franchise of all time. It's one of the few 2D platformer (if not the only) franchises that has managed, over the years, to be a good experience for all the players involved while others - like DKC, Sonic, and NSMB Wii - tend to only be fun for one player involved at a time. A 73% game is not up to the standard of what fans of this franchise were expecting. It still matters to us that the first return to home consoles of a mainline Kirby game in 6 years is decent; 85% minimum, while a game worthy of an 88-90% score would have been preferable, and a 90+ would have been awesome.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.