Skrevet 01-10-2013 21:58 - Redigeret 01-10-2013 22:14
[i]The press is even relatively well-equipped to handle competitive skill-focused multi-player games as long as they’re grounded in a well-established genre. Got a FPS to review? Jot down a list of features, compare its level of execution to the most popular games in the genre at the time, and you’re good.
Where it gets to be a lot more hit & miss is when the press is faced with a skill-focused game that doesn’t easily fit into a pre-established category. These are games designed to be played over a period of months, honing your craft & improving your scores & times, not rushed through to see what happens at the end of the story. And if the reviewer doesn’t even realize that this is a skill-focused game and instead thinks that the game is an experienced-focused game because it’s single-player and has a story? Heaven help the developer of that game who is hoping for a good metacritic score because they’re not going to get it.[/i]
Man må jo indrømme at Wonderful 101 umiddelbart blev lagt under for den sidste del af dette statement, altså hvis man skal tro på Neogaf folkets ros, set i lyset af spillets karakterer, som virkelig har været over det hele, og alle var enige om et lettere frustrerende control-scheme.
[i]Score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score, score… Get rid of fucking score thing & just believe yourself !!
Too bad. RT @JustApollo: A popular American review site gave your game a lower score because it was too hard. Thoughts?
Honor. RT @SamAustin7: Many reviews are giving W101 a low score because its “too hard”. How does this make you feel?
Is that IGN thing your god or something? RT @diosmekemeke: IGN say that the control of The Wonderful 101 is bad
Whatever. RT @BestServedSoup: W101 is not getting bad scores. 79% on Metacritic is good.[/i]
Nu skal man ikke misforstå at Wonderful 101 stadigvæk er anset for at være et godt spil, men det blev ikke den system-seller, som Nintendo håbede på. Hvorfor deler de her review sites så samme mening? Hvorfor kan vi ikke tillade en learning curve mere? Zeboyd's artikel fortsætter:
[i]Now if someone buys a game like this and doesn’t immediately get it, what are they going to do? Well, they have an investment in the game (the money they spent and their desire to enjoy the game) so they’re going to put in the effort to try to get something out of the game. They’ll keep at it until the game’s systems click for them, or they’ll look online at gameplay videos, ask questions on forums, check out a FAQ, etc. Some of them will eventually end up deciding that the game is bad or just not for them, but many of them will eventually end up enjoying the game. And if they end up enjoying the game, they may stick with the game and compete on the leaderboards, try to 100% the game, get all the achievements, etc.
Contrast this with your typical reviewer. They’re pressed for time so they’re unlikely to really master any of the games that they have to review. They’re unlikely to connect with other fans of the game or look up hints & strategies (and for that matter, hints & strategies may not even exist online since they may have the game pre-release). In short they have no incentive to try to get the most out of a game. In fact, they may even feel like putting any extra effort into a game may taint their “unbiased” viewpoint.[/i]
[i]Developers, make better tutorials. Hold the player’s hand at the beginning long enough for them to understand the proper way to play the game & give them the tools to progress further, and then get out of their way, and let them play the game & grow on their own.
Reviewers, make an honest effort to find the fun in games. And if it’s easy to miss that fun, either through a poor in-game tutorial or by mismatched conceptions going in, then help others find that fun through your review.[/i]
Umiddelbart så må jeg erklære mig enig, men også skyldig i at være for hurtigt til at dømme. Jeg tror ikke Wonderful 101 er en 10-tals oplevelse, Platinum Games har aldrig helt været mig, men pludselig finder jeg mig selv i oprigtigt at være i tvivl, for alt hvad jeg har troet om spil: At det blot var et "godt, men ikke fantastisk"-spil, det er i den grad blevet rystet rundt, og pludselig står jeg fordomsfri og interesseret.
Tjek evt. Neogaf's forum tråd, og gå igennem nogle af kommentarerne. Trådens forfatter skriver selv et imponerende indslag i starten.
Tag dog ikke fejl, Wonderful 101 er ikke anset, som et dårligt spil i pressen, men har det fået den kritik det fortjener? Med en metascore på 78, så er det bestemt solidt, men hvad har fået anmeldere til at ramme så forskelligt i deres anmeldelser? Kan det være, at der blot er snak om en arrogance fra de anmeldere, som fandt det for svært (IGN der ligeud sagt kaldte det dårligt), eller har der bare været mangel på tid? Bør de give sig selv mere tid.
Har du Wonderful 101? Hvor lang tid har du spillet det? Er der noget at komme efter, og ser du dig selv spille det lidt igen, eller du er fast besluttet på, at det ikke lige var din kop te.
Jeg tror i hvert fald, at jeg har fundet et spil, som jeg snart smider nogen penge efter!
Zeboyd's artikel:
http://zeboyd.com/2013/09/10/why-games-like-the-wonderful-101-are-a-poor-fit-for-the-gaming-press/
Neogaf opslag:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=688619
#1 - Skrevet 01-10-2013 23:00
Jeg har læst i Edge og hos Gamereactor, at spillet har svært ved at genkende hvad man tegner og man kommer til at spilde energi på forkerte evner. Det tændte mig fuldstændig af.