I think the drive of his complaint is that the boss battles are overly long, and failure during these extended sequences results in laborious legwork to walk through patterns already mastered to have another shot at the section you failed at.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Don't fail.
Isn't that nearly every boss battle ever though?
Are the boss battles actually divided into separate sections though? If that were the case I could see this complaint possibly being legitimate.
possibly
The one I've seen is not. It was all one battle. So if you fail at it.... Tough luck? Do it again?
I saw a glimpse of that actually (I'm trying to look away during footage lol), the part where you could switch lanes and there were those huge blocks on the tracks.
That is like Galaxy 2 levels of freshness absolutely, I loved it. I hope that's the norm and not the exception.
I'd still like to maintain Galaxy 2 was something special, I doubt any game will ever come close to the frequency it was introducing idea after idea and the insane depth every single one of them had. There's enough material there to support a hundred $10 games.
princemarth23
Member
He seems spoiled by the ease of the latest Rayman platformers (which are still good games, mind you). It's as if a game providing a stiff challenge and not handing you progress on a silver platter is a bad thing. I don't buy that the game is bland and boring; I think he just got too frustrated with it much like that Kotaku guy who streamed the game.
No, because not all boss battles are as long as the ones here. Tropical Freeze's boss battles are also not particularly interactive from what I've seen, so walking through the same pattern over and over again would be understandably draining.
They have very distinct phases to me.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't take rocket science or a art scholar to differentiate between a truly bad game vs a personal opinion.
Like a really good car that's not your style: if you don't like the way it looks, fine, but it's not fair to tell everyone that the car is just bad because you don't like it especially if the car is built well, is safe to drive, and a good price.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I mean, Gamespot gave Giana Sisters a fucking 8, and the boss battles in that game were legitimately atrocious. Each encounter had horrible hitboxes, tons of unnecessary animation, and a lot of genuinely cheap garbage. And yet, they said "Boss battles test your skills fairly" in that game's review. Now, admittedly, I don't know if it was the same reviewer, but come on. Compared to the games Gamespot's rewarded in the past, I seriously doubt DKC: TF really crosses the line.
Well I guess I'll just have to see when I play the game.
But it still sounds like a stupid complaint to me. Even though boss battles can have phases, they're usually one whole challenge, so I don't see much reason to have checkpoints mid-battle.
Vire
Member
I have played DKCR, and I'm one of the few crazy people who prefer the Rare classics to the newer ones. The atmosphere and general sense of creepiness is all but lost in a cutesey overly friendly world Retro has envisioned. Frankly, we have enough platformers like that.
I would be much more excited to play this:
Than what we got.
And while I appreciate they got David Wise back on the team, even his tracks have been made more upbeat and less unsettling.
As far as gameplay goes in DKCR, I thought the addition of the waggle roll was pretty horrible for a game that requires fine comb precision.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
You're not the only one but some people act like the older series was survival horror with their semantics, it's highly amusing.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I feel like this is kind of misguided in the sense that it seems to almost purport some sort of moral responsibility to games -- or if we want to set the bar even higher -- art criticism. I don't see how it behooves me to walk into a game and give a score that doesn't jive with my personal assessment of it. If it's an objectively well made game, then that should be reflected by my enjoyment of the title and filter through to my review.
If I'm not enjoying it, I think one of two things must be true. The first is that I don't need to agree with its so-called objective quality. I'm competent in the genre and if I'm not feeling what the game is trying to do, I should review it thusly. The other possibility is that I'm just not the target player for the title, and perhaps someone else should handle it. I allow for this possibility simply because of instances in the past where -- for instance -- that IGN reviewer tore into Soccer Manager because it wasn't FIFA. Obviously, in that case, it is worth noting that the reviewer didn't go into the title with the right perspective.
Rizsparky
Member
The game was creepy as a kid, the Kremlins were weird!
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
I never found it creepy at all.
It had atmosphere and was cool but I never found it spooky.
I totally dug the skullcarts though.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Except no.
It changes gameplay, they didn't have that type of gameplay in the first game.
They might not use it enough but it definitely changes things up.
MrSaturn99
Member
It's not that I don't think people can be disappointed with Tropical Freeze feeling too similar to DKCR, but some of these low-scoring reviews are...weird, to say the least. The confusing ending paragraph of Eurogamer's review has been already brought up, but check out this excerpt from NowGamer.
That's literally how the paragraph is written. I can get away with a mistake like this on my small-time game blog, but it's rather embarrassing on a professional level and unfortunately feeds the "DURRR STUPID REVIEWERS" stereotype.
Wordage aside, my only problem with the low-scoring reviews keep spinning the whole "oh Tropical Freeze doesn't make use of the GamePad" into how it's not the game the Wii U needs. I don't care about whether or not it'll save the Wii U; I care about how the game stands by itself. It's okay if you feel a sense of "been there, done that", as I got that weird feeling from SM3DW myself and it's very possible I may get that from Tropical Freeze (my foaming at the mouth over gameplay videos aside). But downplaying stuff like the amazing score because you feel it's a waste of Retro's talent comes across as an insult to me.
While they're fun to read, reviews don't have much of an influence on what I purchase. It's ironic I say this since I want to professionally write game reviews one day, but there's been plenty of times where I've found myself at odds with critics' opinions, especially in unanimous situations (such as Kirby Air Ride for its supposed mediocrity and Zelda: Skyward Sword for its apparent masterpiece status). Regardless of critical reception, I'll be there day one to purchase it.
At the end of the day, it's just some guy's opinion, even if it chalks up to unrelated BS or poor writing skills.
That's literally how the paragraph is written. I can get away with a mistake like this on my small-time game blog, but it's rather embarrassing on a professional level and unfortunately feeds the "DURRR STUPID REVIEWERS" stereotype.
Wordage aside, my only problem with the low-scoring reviews keep spinning the whole "oh Tropical Freeze doesn't make use of the GamePad" into how it's not the game the Wii U needs. I don't care about whether or not it'll save the Wii U; I care about how the game stands by itself. It's okay if you feel a sense of "been there, done that", as I got that weird feeling from SM3DW myself and it's very possible I may get that from Tropical Freeze (my foaming at the mouth over gameplay videos aside). But downplaying stuff like the amazing score because you feel it's a waste of Retro's talent comes across as an insult to me.
While they're fun to read, reviews don't have much of an influence on what I purchase. It's ironic I say this since I want to professionally write game reviews one day, but there's been plenty of times where I've found myself at odds with critics' opinions, especially in unanimous situations (such as Kirby Air Ride for its supposed mediocrity and Zelda: Skyward Sword for its apparent masterpiece status). Regardless of critical reception, I'll be there day one to purchase it.
At the end of the day, it's just some guy's opinion, even if it chalks up to unrelated BS or poor writing skills.
I don't have a problem with the reviews and I really don't care about the scores. My beef is more with how poorly their reviews actually are. I understand the angst when some reviewers tend to hit Nintendo games for certain things that they conveniently ignore in other games or games on other platforms. We don't read a lot of reviewers hitting on the Xbox One games for not using Kinect well. We don't see a lot of reviews hitting on the PS4 for not using its full functionality. We won't hear anything about Uncharted 4 this fall because just another "Uncharted" game or Dark Souls 2 being another "Souls" game is relatively short order. I don't think there is any conspiracy, I just think most reviewers suck. When you fall back to justify why you didn't like a game to what some of these reviewers have done, you're not doing a good job. If you're using your review to beat up Nintendo for the state of the Wii U that is a mistake to. This is the game. This is the platform. Is the game good or not? It's like the whole "Is it a good game or a good Wii U game" we hear that a lot. You'll never hear it about the PS4 or Xbox One.
The good thing is that reviewers really don't matter anymore. I take most of my "reviews" from forums I frequent much more so than critics.
On to using the full scale. That is how it should be. I agree. But, the "full scale" thing seems to be by a case by case basis. If reviewers more consistent with how they reviewed games we'd be more consistent in how we reacted to a 6 or 7.
The Xtortionist
Member
Which of his classic tracks were unsettling? I'll give you Misty Menace, Cave Dweller Concert, Northern Hemispheres and maybe Flight of the Zinger, but not much else is what I'd call creepy. Plus three of those are from the first DKC which I think most would agree paled in comparison to the sequel's OST.
I look forward for your critical review of Uncharted 4 this year or the Last of Us 2 next year.
StreetsAhead
Member
Although I hate the whole everyone gets a trophy mentality but it is a fair point. If there are multiple phases through out a boss fight and you mastered a phase.....why not have it start you at the beginning of each phase?
Not any reason to score it a 6 though. The one on Wii was amazing and by most accounts this is better. This should get an 8 at the lowest if it is truly an improvement on the Wii game.
The reviewer sounds whiny and probably wants his hand held.
I didn't like the waggle either. Terrible choice to include that. This one doesn't have it thank God.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
No one cares about that dude, how are you liking the game and how far are you???
If you've mastered a phase is it that difficult to get through it again?
Vire
Member
There is absolutely nothing in the new games like Misty Menace..
I don't know if creepy is the right word for the music, but just to give you an example of the changes:
Stickerbrush Symphony in DKC2
Stickerbrush Symphony in DKC TF
One is a lot more moody/calm cool collected than the other. I vastly prefer the old style to new, but hey that's just my opinion.
Christopher
Member
You'll get it don't worry! I also am a huge Nintendo fan and LOVED Link to the Past Between Worlds.
GetemMa
Member
Read the Gamespot review from start to finish and it just screams "this is too hard (for me)"
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review/1900-6415667/
I beat Returns. It was hard but extremely fair and I enjoyed the difficulty. This reviewer just seems to be coddled by the new ear of challengeless games.
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-review/1900-6415667/
I beat Returns. It was hard but extremely fair and I enjoyed the difficulty. This reviewer just seems to be coddled by the new ear of challengeless games.
Hahaha! Didn't catch that he wrote "under water sections" He must be one of those guys assuming that DKCR was the same as the SNES ones without playing it.
ShineALight
Member
Great games, but they're not really in the same league as far as challenge goes, which is a pretty significant part of DKC's modern identity.
They really aren't comparable. Rayman Legends is extraordinarily easy while Origins has a different feel than DKC.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
I've played Rayman and they are good, but never reach the excellence that DKCR achieved, and which I am hoping TF achieves. Super Meat Boy is the only thing that came close to DKCR last gen as far as 2D platformers go.
No but it is time consuming. I understand the argument although it is trivial and should only be a small criticism. The game score should not be docked much (if at all) for something like this.
Giving a game like this a 6 is ridiculous (even if it was too hard for him) If this is on par with DKCR then even if it isn't his type of game then no way can he justify given it a 6.
The guy probably is one of those whiners that gets mad when a game actually provides a challenge (like DKCR)
Exactly.
2 DKC in 18 years and they are getting bashed for it.
I thought Returns was a fresh, modern take on the old SNES series and it evolved quite a bit more than other series.
If you have guns, blood, explosion, handholding, bullet time, etc....then rehashing content is all forgiven.
This argument reminds me of my parents when I was growing up and asked them for a game. "Don't you already have a video game?" Yes, they make different ones.
It's not a version of a game you already played. It's a new game. New levels, new mechanics, new gameplay, etc. The only thing that isn't new is the IP and the basic gameplay.
I remember people complaining about Nintendo rehashing things when Luigi's Mansion came out on Gamecube.
They don't realize that just because it had a familiar character that it was a new franchise and totally different gameplay than Mario Bros.
Vire
Member
Except... they are? DKC TF has an 82 on Metacritic. (All these games were largely criticized for being too familiar)
AC Revelations: 80 on Metacritic
Call of Duty Ghosts: 73 on Metacritic
megabytecr
Member
Exactly this.
What a stupid argument in general. I love platformer genre. We don't have enough developers working on high budget platformer games. Yet people have the need to come here and say that one of the last few that are still working on games like Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze are wasting their talent and should go and work on the third sequel to Metroid Prime series for whatever reason. It's very disheartening. I don't come shit on developers that work on IP's or genres I dislike. That would be disrespectful and selfish because I know there are people that really enjoy those games. I understand that Metroid Prime has its own fans but at the end of the day this is the call Retro (and Nintendo that's funding them) made and that's all that matters.
Gamespot gave it a 8 out of 10
and it has a 7.8 average
http://www.gamerankings.com/ps4/713745-call-of-duty-ghosts/index.html
PS4 version 78. You posted a last gen version with less reviews.
Gamestop gave it a 8
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/call-of-duty-ghosts
To me it depends on how distinct those phases are. If the boss just turns red from anger and starts moving faster and throwing out more attacks I don't feel like that should be counted as a phase and you should get a checkpoint at that part. If halfway through the battle, the boss busts a hole in the wall and throws DK into another section of the level and it shifts from an on foot boss battle to a rocket barrel boss level, then a third phase happens and you're back on foot, but are overcoming a distinctly different challenge (whatever that may be), then I can see not having check points a problem.
But if all bosses work the way that first Sea Lion boss works... I see no need for checkpoints.
StreetsAhead
Member
I think it is very well made. I am on level 4-1. It is still difficult, but I haven't died nearly as much as DKCR(3D), at least not yet - or I'm getting better at 2D platformers. I haven't felt the need to use an item yet. The characters/enemies are lively, the animations are fun, the world feels alive and rich. Some levels stand out more than others (3-1, for example). I think the Snomads are a much better set of enemies compared to the Tikis. Overall, I've enjoyed the level design and find the cart, rockets, and Rambi levels an improvement over the first game especially (in the case of the vehicles, it's possible this has more to do with having 2 hits by default as opposed to one).
The time attacks are great, but I wish the videos were at least shared on your Miiverse timeline. I also wish it were possible to scroll through the entire list, and not just certain sections (top 7 or 8, friends, people who scored close to you).
Boss battles have been good fun, so far. An improvement in design artistically and mechanically over Returns so far. I like re-starting the fight if I die because it gives me the chance to grab a partner character again. Dixie is easy to use, but Cranky took me a little bit of getting used to. Speed run spoilers:
Cranky will be great for speed runners since a rolling jump + cane jump combined gives huge momentum. Seriously, that World Record video of 1-1 is nuts, at least to me.
The underwater sections look great, but I'm having a bit of trouble moving in them. Not 100% sure if it's me or the game, but given my skill level it's probably me (and also watching speed-runs).
The Kong-Pow mechanic is a bit blergh and I keep forgetting that it exists to use it, but I suppose if I needed it I would remember. On the other hand, the Pull mechanic works much better than the blow mechanic from the previous game in that it feels far more satisfying and you're not Donkey Kong on your knees blowing on a flower.
Overall, I'm enjoying my time with it more than Returns mainly because I find the whole experience less frustrating. The graphics aren't a technical wonder, but they are pretty and do pop in parts (seriously, 3-1 is the peak so far). The boss fights have so far felt more inventive than Retrurns and while (animal buddy spoiler:
I'd love more animal buddies besides Rambi
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
They're a dying breed besides Nintendo and indies.
We should be excited for any we get in modern day gaming rather than taking them for granted.
If they aren't your thing, cool.
But don't take them for granted because you don't favor them.
They're a staple in gaming and there's a reason why there are hundreds of these so-called samey games(indie scene) and people still look forward to playing them.
The good ones always have their own feel and flair and personality.
I preordered the game but and loved the one on the Wii but they should have made Metroid 1st to try to attract a different type of audience. DK could have came after Metroid. The audience that bought Mario will buy DK. They already have Wii U. It isn't attracting a new audience like Metroid could
Similar threads
- Poll