It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (Catch-All)

Pages

So far MadWorld seems to be getting great reviews. IGN and Nintendo Power both gave it a 9/10. The good word seems to be that it's extremely stylish, looks great for a Wii game, plays well, and is finally a game that's not being marketed toward your grandma and toddler. The bad word is that it's apparently pretty short (as brawlers tend to be) and the camera is less than ideal.

Final Verdict: Double chainsaw! Holy crap!

Anyone give this one a shot?

I'm picking it up tomorrow from Gamestop. It looks pretty cool, the Wii has actually had a pretty good Q1 for releases.

Bonus Points for the thread title.

Well played.

7/10 from Eurogamer.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ma...
They appreciate the style and creativity, but have trouble with the problems cause by the sudden increase in difficulty along the way.

Aaron D. wrote:

Bonus Points for the thread title.

Well played.

I try.

Been looking at this, but will probably wait to pick it up. I gotta knock down my back log a bit.

Any reviewer who marks down a game for increases in difficulty has no business reviewing a hardcore title. Do we mark down Megaman ZX or Contra for difficulty? No.

LarryC wrote:

Any reviewer who marks down a game for increases in difficulty has no business reviewing a hardcore title. Do we mark down Megaman ZX or Contra for difficulty? No.

Different era.. and different audience.. I'd say its very fair and informative given that this is a Wii title to let people know exactly what they are getting into.

TheGameguru wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Any reviewer who marks down a game for increases in difficulty has no business reviewing a hardcore title. Do we mark down Megaman ZX or Contra for difficulty? No.

Different era.. and different audience.. I'd say its very fair and informative given that this is a Wii title to let people know exactly what they are getting into.

I think the problem is that the Hardcore difficulty level in MadWorld is too difficult to be a viable option for most gamers. Challenge is one thing, but virtually insurmountable difficulty, just for the sake of it seems like a waste, imo.

From the Eurogamer review it also seems that one problem with the difficulty is the lack of in-mission checkpoints. You can take 30 minutes to get to a boss and if you lose to him, you have to start all over.

I'm picking this up just to give my poor Wii something to do besides play Gamecube games.

I know this is alien to some gamers out there, but some of us LIKE developing wholly artificial and thoroughly useless hand-eye coordination skills that allow us to beat impossible difficulty levels at games like this. This is what hardcore really means: to enjoy a game so much even things that should feel like work are enjoyable.

PS: Megaman ZX was a relatively recent release for the Nintendo DS. So was Megaman 9.

LobsterMobster wrote:

From the Eurogamer review it also seems that one problem with the difficulty is the lack of in-mission checkpoints. You can take 30 minutes to get to a boss and if you lose to him, you have to start all over.

I always wonder why developers do things like that. It can't just be technical issues, surely saving game at the start of a boss fight isn't that hard? Do they really think that people like having to replay 30 minutes of the game again and again? Or are they hoping we won't notice how short the game is if we have to keep replaying chunks of it?

Anyway, that issue makes it a definite no-buy for me.

LarryC wrote:

I know this is alien to some gamers out there, but some of us LIKE developing wholly artificial and thoroughly useless hand-eye coordination skills that allow us to beat impossible difficulty levels at games like this. This is what hardcore really means: to enjoy a game so much even things that should feel like work are enjoyable.

PS: Megaman ZX was a relatively recent release for the Nintendo DS. So was Megaman 9.

Well thats why they made the game then.. for people like you.. but having a reviewer honestly review a game especially one on a platform seemingly catered to casual gamers makes a whole lot of sense no?

TheGameGuru:

Not really, no. Having casual-oriented gamers review games for hardcore gamers makes about as much sense as asking a hardcore gamer to review Wii Music or Wii Fit - they're just not very likely to get it.

Railing on a game for qualities that are intended to be attractive (and are to its intended audience) is just all sorts of wrong.

LobsterMobster:

Again, same thing. The ultimate expression of the always-save point no-consequence failure is the new Prince of Persia's no-fail philosophy. I get that some people like never having much consequence for failing a skill game, but I prefer for a game to be a game with actual consequences.

I don't fault the Solitaire game for having me redeal the deck and start over when I lose. That's part of what makes the game interesting.

Zelos wrote:

Anyway, that issue makes it a definite no-buy for me.

It is looking to be a bit of a turn-off for me, although I guess it was always to be expected. Viewtiful Joe and God Hand also had difficulty cliffs near the end.

Not really, no. Having casual-oriented gamers review games for hardcore gamers makes about as much sense as asking a hardcore gamer to review Wii Music or Wii Fit - they're just not very likely to get it.

Railing on a game for qualities that are intended to be attractive (and are to its intended audience) is just all sorts of wrong.

So.. you would just rather they completely ignore it and hope that the wrong people dont buy the game? That makes no sense.. again the "hardcore" review sites will give this game the review it "deserves" and the more casual oriented reviewers will mention its difficulty and inform the right people.

I'd say mission accomplished.

LarryC wrote:

Again, same thing. The ultimate expression of the always-save point no-consequence failure is the new Prince of Persia's no-fail philosophy. I get that some people like never having much consequence for failing a skill game, but I prefer for a game to be a game with actual consequences.

I don't fault the Solitaire game for having me redeal the deck and start over when I lose. That's part of what makes the game interesting.

There's a difference between consequences and replaying 30 minutes of a game. I guess it's just a difference in taste, but personally I find repetition extremely dull - most games have enough trouble keeping things interesting anyway, without explicitly forcing you to replay sections. I tried the demo for Megaman 9 and absolutely hated it - it seemed to require you to die in order to learn the levels.

Edit: Obviously, you can take things too far. De Blob recently annoyed me because you couldn't fail the challenges at all: if you ran out of time you could restart the challenge with all your progress saved and a full timer. Why bother with a timer at all in that case?

LarryC wrote:

There's no need to insult the game for catering to its target audience, and no need to depict it in any negative light. Reviews of Megaman and Contra, Ninja Gaiden and Gradius make no secret of just how hard these games are. In fact, they make that very clear multiple times in the review - what they don't do is cast that in a negative light as if it were something that appeals to nobody and is, in fact, a game design flaw.

It isn't.

Megaman ZX boots you back to the start when you lose all your lives trying to defeat a boss. It always has. This is not considered a flaw, any more than dying in RE is considered a flaw.

Yeah we've been down this path many times.. its the whole "wrong reviewer reviewed the game" argument that Angry Internet Men love.

Its a review.. with a number attached.

There's no need to insult the game for catering to its target audience, and no need to depict it in any negative light. Reviews of Megaman and Contra, Ninja Gaiden and Gradius make no secret of just how hard these games are. In fact, they make that very clear multiple times in the review - what they don't do is cast that in a negative light as if it were something that appeals to nobody and is, in fact, a game design flaw.

It isn't.

Megaman ZX boots you back to the start when you lose all your lives trying to defeat a boss. It always has. This is not considered a flaw, any more than dying in RE is considered a flaw.

Zelos:

I have no problems with your not liking this style of game. Not all games are for everyone. This is a beat-em-up. As with a platform shooter like Megaman, the pleasure of gaming is in the skill of navigating through the world. Repeating that is like repeating a Sudoku puzzle - it's supposed to be a penalty, but in reality, it's just an excuse to play more of the game you like.

Yes, Megaman involves a lot of trial and error gameplay. It always has. It always will. That's part of why its fans like it.

7/10 from Eurogamer still means the game is very good, it's just letting readers know that it may have some issues that they want to know about. The text of the review is positive.

Zelos:

Regarding de Blob: Because time is part of the challenge? You don't die when you don't finish a marathon in the alloted time. Even so, I'm given to understand that people attempt to finish it anyway within the alloted time anyway - and they repeatedly try until they get it. I dunno. It seems obvious enough to me. I love de Blob.

Oh yeah, you get a "Got it in one!" if you finish a challenge the first try.

TheGameGuru:

It's not an argument - it's plain fact. I LIKE the things that the reviewer is faulting the game for! Many people do. 30 minutes down the drain? Pish posh. The game's Normal mode isn't supposed to be that hard - you're not supposed to fail.

I suppose the game designers could have included a "PoP" "infinite lives" mode wherein Jack never dies. That's certainly an idea - Casual Mode.

NOTICE how I'm not mentioning any scores.

NOTICE how I'm not mentioning the review as a whole.

My problem is with this reviewer faulting a game for what is supposed to be a positive and attractive feature. It's like finding fault with a Porsche because it's too darned fast. Duh.

LarryC wrote:

Megaman ZX boots you back to the start when you lose all your lives trying to defeat a boss. It always has. This is not considered a flaw, any more than dying in RE is considered a flaw.

First, yes it is. Second, all opinions on games are utterly subjective. What is a flaw to one person may be a feature to another person - that doesn't mean you have no right to complain about something that makes the game less fun to you just because someone else enjoys that sort of thing. The point of a review is to discuss the things the reviewer took from his experience playing and give you a frame of reference to look at it.

We're all posting on a message board about games, that is already way more hardcore than the average game fan. The person you are talking about who buckles down and masochistically pounds his head on impossible difficulty curves is a fringe of a fringe of a fringe community, and if the gaming press targeted just that guy with a laser focus then they would be near useless.

The thing is, there are no universal rules and guidelines that reviews should follow. It's just a number representing the reviewers appreciation of the game and as gamers we get to know which ones we tend to agree with. You should probably avoid Eurogamer in the future.

...

Games that have different art styles tend to score bonus points just for the hell of it, and as someone who mostly cares about gameplay I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

Maybe there is a difference between slicing off points for difficulty and slicing off points for sudden, unprecedented increases in difficulty. Contra and Mega Man, from what I recall, stay pretty tough the whole way through. It's not like things go from Viva Pinata to Ninja Gaiden in the span of a few levels.

I haven't played Mad World, and I don't mind if it's a difficult game, but I get really irked when I sweep through the first three levels of a game and am suddenly confronted with hell incarnate on the fourth. I would like to be warned about something like that. Be difficult from the get-go, or not at all.

AGAIN.

I don't demand that the reviewer skim over or paste over the fact that the game can be hard. In fact, he "criticizes" the game for "turning into a precision sport." That makes me smile even though I can clearly see that it's negative in its connotation.

On the one hand, the point of a review is to deliver a personal gaming report. On the other hand, as a public domain reviewer, he has an onus to provide a more or less accurate review that's neutral in gaming taste and relays the correct information to the right people.

Yes, the point of a review is to post personal takes. That still wouldn't make it right for a reviewer to lambast a Porsche for having odious fuel efficiency to create speed that he thinks is dangerous and undesirable.

On some level, he's got to understand that this is exactly what buyers of the Porsche are going to want and say so accordingly.

PS: Clemenstation: That's actually untrue. Difficulty in Megaman games are universally uneven. This is particularly so when you hit on the right sequence of boss battles and have come on a lot of powerups - the going can get pretty darned easy. Then you get to Wily's Castle and lose all your stuff. Classic.

On the other hand, as a public domain reviewer, he has an onus to provide a more or less accurate review that's neutral in gaming taste and relays the correct information to the right people.

I disagree and I don't even think that's humanly possible. You can't objectively evaluate something you don't like. I'd rather find a reviewer that share my tastes and read his honest and personal opinion than read some colorless review that tries to please everybody.

Anyway, I respectfully suggest we get back on topic so yeah, Madworld rocks etc...

Public domain reviewer? He's paid to write for a gaming website, there's no public service involved at all. If you don't like the reviews, remember not to read them in future. Reviewing an experience like a game is fundamentally different from reviewing an object like a car. If he doesn't like steep difficulty curves, does his opinion really matter to someone who lives for them?

LarryC wrote:

On the other hand, as a public domain reviewer, he has an onus to provide a more or less accurate review that's neutral in gaming taste and relays the correct information to the right people.

This is an awful myth that has plagued game reviews for too long. Reviews that attempt to be "neutral in taste" just wind up second-guessing themselves until they are generic tripe that is useless to everyone equally. Reviews are ALL ABOUT taste.

I think there's a difference between something being challenging and something being hard. Making a player replay part of a game because they screwed up is not a challenge; they've already cleared that part of the game before so they've beaten the "challenge" part of it. It just makes things hard. I get that some people like feeling consequences for their failure but I'm not sure how I feel about a game that "punishes" you for screwing up. Then again, if you feel punished by having to play the game more, maybe that's indicative of other problems.

Mr.Green wrote:
On the other hand, as a public domain reviewer, he has an onus to provide a more or less accurate review that's neutral in gaming taste and relays the correct information to the right people.

I disagree and I don't even think that's humanly possible. You can't objectively evaluate something you don't like. I'd rather find a reviewer that share my tastes and read his honest and personal opinion than read some colorless review that tries to please everybody.

Anyway, I respectfully suggest we get back on topic so yeah, Madworld rocks etc... :D

You also can't produce an accurate, neutral review that also passes judgment. Someone looking to buy a game wants to know if they will enjoy it. Lots of people seem to love WiiFit. It doesn't appeal to me so I haven't purchased it. If a neutral review were possible, that situation would not be.

Pages