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

73 isn't what I'd consider a bomb, yeah it's not as high as people expected but that isn't a bomb in the slightest.

Around the Network

73? Man, it tanked. Anything below a 97 is garbage, right?

Jumpin said:

You answered your own question.

"give or take multiple points." Not to mention, there are hundreds of games in the 75-high 80 score range. Are all of those critically comparable to each other? No, they aren't. Different games have different genres, different purposes, and different audiences. Just because their number is similar does not make them comparable.

How is that a bomb? And does anyone even really care about the critical reception of a Kirby game?

You have high standards if a game falling in the 70s is considered 'bombing'. Plus, I associate a game 'bombing' with sales, rather than metascore. Lesser scoring games can still sell well, after all.



Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

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

Then I guess games like Kirby's Epic Yarn should have been given a 70 instead of an 89 overall :P

It all depends on the reviewer's perspective. Do they mind relatively easy games? Do they dock games that are too hard like Dark Souls?

I mean, Pokemon ORAS was once docked by IGN with one of the reasons being "Too much water" when it was nature of its original game, Ruby and Sapphire.

It's all on the perspective of the reviewer. Not every reviewer thinks the same way as you may view a game.

I think if they priced it more reasonably, people would be less harsh.

How did this thread blow up like this ?

I can't fanthom how Kirby has only become revelant here because a of a lesser score than previous entries.

Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

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.

The games may be on the easy side, but your analogy is a little messed up, lol. I don't mind games being "too easy" as long as their fun, and I prefer easy games to hard games, since they can become rather frustrating, and I don't think it's fair to dock points based on difficulty, especially of a game such as Kirby which is aimed at a younger audience.

Honestly, I don't even consider 73 a bad score, I think it's a good score for games, but then again I count 50/100 as being "average", which I've been told is wrong, lol :P

Cloudman said:
You have high standards if a game falling in the 70s is considered 'bombing'. Plus, I associate a game 'bombing' with sales, rather than metascore. Lesser scoring games can still sell well, after all.

Why is it high standards to expect consistent quality from the franchise? Do you think fans should settle for a game that is substantially worse than expected because it’s not terrible?

So, for example, Pokemon games are comparable to Kirby games in that they generally score around the same as Kirby games. Do you think fans have standards too high of the first outing of a mainline Pokemon game on Switch is merely a 73%?

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.