AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Decent review, though I don't like it when reviewers make a comparison and don't substantiate it much. I guess some of what you showed vaguely looked like Metroid, but it honestly felt more on the side of just H.R. Giger imitation, and I don't think it's a particularly unique calling card. I was waiting to see a good argument for the Metroid comparison in gameplay and story, but again all I got was a vague mention of exploration and "being on an alien world", even though those elements look to be taken more from the aforementioned Recore (yea I know that has Prime devs, but it doesn't seem very Metroid at all). Just constructive criticism, feel free to ignore it. Still, good review.  Also one thing I really hate about Sony's $70 price tag for their games is the fact that, it's just going to make the argument for short games being a full priced release even worse. We already have people shitting on shorter titles way too much, despite those games often boasting some of the best gameplay around. But now at $70, it's going to be harder for people to justify picking up stuff like Returnal. The fact that a singleplayer game that is 15 hours for the regular ending and 22 hours for the true ending is considered "too short" is frankly ridiculous and a problem with how we value and monetize games. |
It's not vague in the slightest: it just seems that way without a modern Metroid. From the platforming layout to the locked doors to the "get this suit upgrade to access this area" in which you take it off a dead alien body instead of a dead alien statue's hands to the strafe/jump shoot mechanics to the scanning to learn about the world, it's definitely taken a page from the last Metroid Prime installments. These same things also appeared in ReCore which also has Metroid influence. It doesn't LOOK like it because my review is condensed, but I have zero doubt someone else with experience playing Metroid Prime and ReCore sees this, too.
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
A lot of singleplayer games that have more content than that have a ridiculous amount of filler or content which is generally of a lower quality, that probably could have just been cut if game developers weren't worried about making the game overly long to begin with. I really can't think of many games that stretch into the 30+ hour range that are super consistent in quality, there are probably a few (for most people, the old school Final Fantasies come to mind) but not many. A lot of the games that have the best gameplay density, complexity in their ideas, and that are consistently fun are actually shorter because they don't have to stretch those ideas incredibly far. What I'm saying is that (and when you cut out that specific snippet, this isn't very evident), I understand why people would be upset at paying $70 for a game that's not going to give them dozens upon dozens of hours of content. But I think the fact that a new $70 price tag will make this type of idea even more prevalent, understandable and respectable is sad. Of course, this narrative existed when all new triple A games were $60, too, so to some extent this will always exist as long as new big release games are price matched to an industry-standard. But again, this talking point will become even more normalized, which I think is just a bit sad and kind of stifles discussion on the quality of the games themselves. |
Since the game uses random level generation and rogue-like death cycles, the game ends up actually re-using things a LOT, and you find yourself repeating yourself a LOT (assuming you die a lot or restart on purpose). You might find that what you're saying applies here: a lot of a person's playtime is RE-DOING the same things again lol, ergo "filler" time.
numberwang said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Also one thing I really hate about Sony's $70 price tag for their games is the fact that, it's just going to make the argument for short games being a full priced release even worse. We already have people shitting on shorter titles way too much, despite those games often boasting some of the best gameplay around. But now at $70, it's going to be harder for people to justify picking up stuff like Returnal. The fact that a singleplayer game that is 15 hours for the regular ending and 22 hours for the true ending is considered "too short" is frankly ridiculous and a problem with how we value and monetize games. |
15 hours of... backtracking through empty landscapes and enemies out of the Unreal Engine catalogue? or 15 hours of dense character, story, variety of items, enemies, landscapes? I don't get a feeling for that game yet. Op, make those reviews longer and it is okay to talk more about settings, characters and early story without spoiling the whole game. Game mechanics should be explained some more, do we get grappling hooks, double jumps, new weapons like Metroid to reach new areas? Is it just 15 hours of shooting enemies until the end? Are there branching paths / open world design or more of a linear map design. |
My channel's staple is that videos are 5 min or less which makes it possible to watch my videos at all times of the day (I have a few people who have literally said they use their breaks at work to watch my videos). The short length is what works in my favor, and also keeps me in line: the tendency for longer reviews is that you end up with rants, going on tangents, and end up with a lot of *ahem* filler in longer reviews. Besides, what you're asking for is more explaining the game than reviewing it: I'm not talking about HOW the unlocks work to access new areas or what moves are at your disposal, but whether or not it all comes together. Having said that, I DO mention mechanics when they need to be talked about, but here, there's no need to tell you what platforming entails. My assumption is that I'm reviewing a game for gamers, so when I say "platforming", I don't need to explain jumping/dashing/grappling hooks, you only simply need to know you will be doing platforming and that it serves to break up the monotony of shooting which is the primary gameplay mechanic.
I think, and this isn't meant to be offensive, you are the type that looks more for "gameplay" and "walkthroughs" than reviews. As an equivalent example, a car review is similar: the driver tells you how the car feels, how it handles, what the ending result is. They don't tell you how the car works: they simply assume that you, the viewer, understand the basics. I wouldn't tell someone how to shift gears in a manual in the review, I'd simply say that "because of the short throw shifter, shifting feels quick and precise".
But yes, just for you: you do get new equipment to reach new areas like Metroid, hahaha
