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

Forums - Nintendo - Mario + Rabbids: Sparks of Hope revealed for Switch, coming 2022

JWeinCom said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I feel like you're doing a bad job of trying to move my position to one I never claimed nor wish to defend. I'm not really interested in how good the story of the original M+R game is or could have been. That was never my issue. You purposefully set up a leading narrative in a reply ("Did you expect a crossover between Rabbids, who communicate only in screams, and Mario characters to have a rich and nuanced story? If so, I think the problems lied with your expectations.") that I never came close to even saying in the original comment, then I responded to it by basically saying "that's not really why I find the game bland ... but I mean, yea, I guess the story could have been more interesting". Then you respond with "I don't know what you were expecting!!!!". When I already said in the reply that none of the blandness of the game was based on the story, let alone my expectations for it. 

It's fine if you like the game, but please don't try to move my positions to ones I never claimed. I simply entertained that, sure, the story could be more interesting I guess. But that wasn't exactly an issue I had with it or why the game was so bland and just mediocre to me. If you'd like I can explain in-depth why it's parts are much greater individually than the whole, but I imagine that wouldn't be very interesting. 

The point is: game boring. Me hope they make game a lot better in sequel. 

"The first game was so bland and boring. It had a few good humorous moments but it felt so 'artificial'. If you didn't have the context of the creator literally crying at E3 it would seem like the most inhuman product imaginable. Bland writing, ESPECIALLY bland music and a fairly repetitive set up."

Yes, you did mention the writing. The first and third bolded sections I took to be references to the story, which I feel was pretty reasonable. Either way, referencing the "bland writing" clearly speaks to the story. So... yeah, according to your post, that was part of why you thought the game was bland. If that's not what you meant, then that is a flaw in your writing.

Your second post specifically complained about the story, saying it should have been more interesting. This is a position that you clearly took, so I took one sentence to address it. Of the nine sentence post, one talked about the story, two about the music, and six were about the game's structure. You ignored everything I said except for the one sentence about the story then criticized me for trying to make the conversation about the story O_o...................... So yeah, If I was trying to force you into taking some position about the story, then I would have indeed been doing a terrible job of it. Which maybe should indicate that's not what I was trying to do. 

No longer care about what you think of the game but please do not accuse me of any kind of dishonesty ^_^

Yeahhhh..... I'm with Alchemist on this one. He never really claimed anything you have said, especially since he was emphatic that he *personally* didnt think it was good.

I mean, I dont agree with his opinion, the game was great and I am super happy that the sequel is happening, but he is right not bringing up anything you claimed he had.



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

Around the Network
Leynos said:

This is not the Nintendo leak I was looking for. Someone leak Bayonetta 3 trailer and release date! C'mon internet do your thing!

Nooooooo!

I want to be surprised by Bayonetta"s booty showing up in the Nintendo presentation with a September 2021 written on it.



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

Yeah, super stocked about this game!

The first game was a big surprise, both in terms on how it came to be and its quality.

So seeing a sequel makes me so happy. Especially since they really do seem that they are going to be way more ambitious with it. I see an original villain, which makes me excited for an improved and more interesting story. The exploration seems to have been expanded too, since you dont fight in the field no more, but is teleported to a separate place, which makes me wonder that they will dedicate the "world map" exclusively to exploration and everything in between.

There are a few nitpicks that I ddint like, such as the cursor floating around, kind of blocking the view, and the color of the marker of your walking reach being a bland gray, but since this is a 2022 game, guess they are still fixing those things.

Maaaaaan, its not event Nintendo's turn yet and they are already nailing it.



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

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

The first game was so bland and boring. It had a few good humorous moments but it felt so 'artificial'. If you didn't have the context of the creator literally crying at E3 it would seem like the most inhuman product imaginable. Bland writing, ESPECIALLY bland music and a fairly repetitive set up. Good gameplay though. I think it says a lot that most of the discussion online is still about how "surprising it was that it was decent" and not whether or not it's actually a great game.

It had a very good foundation but the most bland structure was ressurected on top of it. This game would have to be at least 1.4x better to be worth a damn.

The game got an 85 in Metacritic, not only that but the talk in the aftermath was that it was surprising the game turned out to be that great, though of course many were careful to use more reserved words like decent and discreet. In the end, there is a wide range of opinions.

But thinking about it now, I lean more towards your thoughts regarding the game, it's one I wouldn't really want to play again, and there wasn't anything striking I would write home about. However, I wouldn't be so harsh in calling it bland and boring. Bland, I don't think it isn't, it's got some nice art and the humorous undertone is fair enough. Boring, well, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it, not enough to beat the endgame content and download the DLC, but I felt well served. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Now that I think about it, I was kind of hoping that Ubi would bump up the number of characters in battle to 4, which would make the battles feel very different, but thats not a big deal.



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

Around the Network

I thought the first game was pretty good, but I've never been a fan of the Rabbids as characters. This game looks phenomenal so far, and a LOT different than the original. It really looks like they've expanded on it tremendously, and I'm excited to see what more they do with it. I'm a big fan of tactical strategy games, and the first one set a good foundation even if some of the level design toward the end wasn't as good. This definitely looks even better!



Metallox said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

The first game was so bland and boring. It had a few good humorous moments but it felt so 'artificial'. If you didn't have the context of the creator literally crying at E3 it would seem like the most inhuman product imaginable. Bland writing, ESPECIALLY bland music and a fairly repetitive set up. Good gameplay though. I think it says a lot that most of the discussion online is still about how "surprising it was that it was decent" and not whether or not it's actually a great game.

It had a very good foundation but the most bland structure was ressurected on top of it. This game would have to be at least 1.4x better to be worth a damn.

The game got an 85 in Metacritic, not only that but the talk in the aftermath was that it was surprising the game turned out to be that great, though of course many were careful to use more reserved words like decent and discreet. In the end, there is a wide range of opinions.

But thinking about it now, I lean more towards your thoughts regarding the game, it's one I wouldn't really want to play again, and there wasn't anything striking I would write home about. However, I wouldn't be so harsh in calling it bland and boring. Bland, I don't think it isn't, it's got some nice art and the humorous undertone is fair enough. Boring, well, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it, not enough to beat the endgame content and download the DLC, but I felt well served. 

Yea the way I worded that part of my comment was not particularly good. What I meant wasn't that I don't see anyone talk about how good/great the game is. Moreso that the merit of how good or great it is is almost always prefaced with how surprising it was that it wasn't bad. And in a way maybe that's why the game left me cold, I wasn't surprised that it had its merits. I wasn't really super skeptical of the project to be honest, which probably left me with no feeling of surprise or reassurance once I actually played the game. 



Today I learned that plot is not the same as story. My life is up side down now.



Grant Kirkhope is doing the music again!



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

Nautilus said:

Grant Kirkhope is doing the music again!

Excellent! The first game had a great soundtrack.