• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Reviews Kirby and the Forgotten Land | Review Thread

BotenAnna said:
I think there's more to this than what you're seeing and what the reviewers are saying. I'm going to throw some reviewers under the bus here, but whatever. What I assume is probably going on, which has happened with Kirby before ironically, is that there are some design elements that never really build up in a linear way as the game goes along. Kirby has a history of abandoning platforming challenges in favor of going for more exploratory and player driven kinds of engagement which don't always work. Some people when they open up the platforming game, are rightfully going to expect platforming to be front and center. When the platforming doesn't engage with them and they are disappointed, it's easy enough to identify the lack of challenge as a component and just point the finger at that. I'd imagine a lot of writers either aren't equipped to get into stuff like that in these "timely" reviews, or whatever platform they write for is just not lookin for that type of analysis in their review format. They could be right in saying something is lacking in that area which harms the game, but are misidentifying the lack of engagement as a lack of difficulty.
Click to expand...

I am going to flip this one and it is one I have (and others too as well) have said before regarding Kirby. The game is 2D and technically, it has platforms. However it is not a platformer in the sense that its challenge or even core experience comes from platforming. Heck, in the 2D games it is almost impossible to die from platforming unless you decide to mess around and let yourself fall in a pit on purpose (or are a wee child and forgot to swallow air). Even the 2D games played more like 2D brawlers and the levels were more exploratory in nature. The closest the series comes to a traditional platformer is the occasional chase sequence, and even then, the challenge is to keep moving before "X" reaches you and destory the enemies or blocks that may slow you down.

So when people ask me if it is a platform, I always say, not really. At least of what we most know of platformers. They're adventure games with some cool brawler elements is the closest I can describe it. That and mini games and boss rushes lol
 
I don't think "too easy" should be a proper criticism. The real line should be engaging/unengaging. A game that is easy to get through isn't inherently bad, as long as it's fun doing it.

To me Star Allies wasn't really engaging, it kinda played itself most of the time and for the main story I think that criticism was warranted. Forgotten Land is very different in that regard, even if it's still "easy";
 
Great reviews! But I don't get why people are annoyed about reviewers complaining about difficulty. They're reviews, of course it's all subjective. Elden Ring is allowed to be too hard, Kirby is allowed to be too easy, and people can feel free to complain about both.
 
Clix said:
I am going to flip this one and it is one I have (and others too as well) have said before regarding Kirby. The game is 2D and technically, it has platforms. However it is not a platformer in the sense that its challenge or even core experience comes from platforming. Heck, in the 2D games it is almost impossible to die from platforming unless you decide to mess around and let yourself fall in a pit on purpose (or are a wee child and forgot to swallow air). Even the 2D games played more like 2D brawlers and the levels were more exploratory in nature. The closest the series comes to a traditional platformer is the occasional chase sequence, and even then, the challenge is to keep moving before "X" reaches you and destory the enemies or blocks that may slow you down.

So when people ask me if it is a platform, I always say, not really. At least of what we most know of platformers. They're adventure games with some cool brawler elements is the closest I can describe it. That and mini games and boss rushes lol
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this, which just helps further the point. Kirby walks and talks like a level based platformer, pretty similarly to Mario. For all intents and purposes it really is that in the way most mainstream genre definitions go, which is going to bleed into mainstream reviews. Can lead to some people expecting that to be their primary engagement, and when it's too "easy" be disappointed. It's also fair to come into a Kirby game knowing this, and still find the other elements like combat interactions or navigation mechanics undercooked or boring. I love Kirby and have played basically all of them, and this is a recurring problem with the series. My point is more that when that happens, I've seen reviewers point to "too easy" as the main complaint on more than one occasion without really getting into the details why it wasn't engaging past that. I can't really blame anybody for that happening too. I've written in the game journo sphere, and I know the conditions for making reviews at these outlets are often hellish while not encouraging that level of discussion.

I'm not even trying to defend Kirby here, the new game could have these problems just like some of the past ones have. It could probably still be great too without engagement issues, I have no clue. I don't care much for review scores personally, but the writers could be "right" in their feelings. I'm really just trying to talk about why reductive statements on difficulty pop up in these reviews like that. Engagement and difficulty just get conflated like that a lot is all. I think the way Kirby is often framed and designed makes it come up with this series weirdly often too.
 
Last edited:
0
in general, I think it's a mistake to view critics mentioning one aspect of a game (in this case, difficulty) as the sole reason a game got a point lower on the rating scale of the site they're writing for. like, it's not a mathematical equation where a game starts as ten and is docked based on each of the criticisms mentioned in the body of the review; scores are a largely arbitrary approximation of a complex opinion
 
0
Any hints of post-launch support? I imagine it's much more content complete than star allies so I'm not worried, just curious
 
totofogo said:
Any hints of post-launch support? I imagine it's much more content complete than star allies so I'm not worried, just curious
Click to expand...
I don't have any inside info, but I'd be surprised if we didn't get DLC in some form. New levels and such could be worked in.
 
Really happy for the reviews and especially the actual reviews outside scores. Seems like it'll be a good game to play even solo without my kids.
 
0
Charamiwa said:
I don't think "too easy" should be a proper criticism. The real line should be engaging/unengaging. A game that is easy to get through isn't inherently bad, as long as it's fun doing it.

To me Star Allies wasn't really engaging, it kinda played itself most of the time and for the main story I think that criticism was warranted. Forgotten Land is very different in that regard, even if it's still "easy";
Click to expand...
This is a great comment and I think you really hit on something.

Reviewers could maybe stand to summarize their issues with difficulty as an issue of being engaging or unengaging more often ... but at the same time, I feel like it's usually obvious what reviewers, critics, and players mean when they call a game too easy. At least based on contextual ques. This reminds me of the debate about Mario Odyssey's difficulty. There was a part of the community that disliked how easy the game was and one that didn't dislike that and kept reaffirming that that's how Mario games always are. It was a smaller vocal minority then of course because it was critically lauded, but while saying Odyssey was "too easy" might sound silly in the context of the Mario series, what was being referred to by most people was how braindead so much of the game's content was. Getting most moons simply amounted to not even a lack of challenge, but no challenge whatsoever. As in, not just a lack of difficulty, but no real obstacle to overcome to begin with. It wasn't just a lack of difficulty that people complained about I think; it was a lack of many moons even having a challenge to overcome. It was like the game developers just forgot to put something there, even though it was obviously very purposeful.

To me, stuff like that is absolutely a valid complaint. If your game is essentially so easy people actually start unengaging and getting bored? That's a pretty significant problem. Not saying that applies to Kirby or any easy game, mind you. I think that a lot of this is down to how the game is crafted moreso than just how easy or hard is it.
 
Quoted by: Yzz
1
Canā€™t wait. I knew it would do well.
The perfect break from Elden Ring.

Surprised people expected it to be challenging. Thatā€™s not really what Kirby games have ever been about. Heā€™s an OP pink star lord after all.
 
0
AngryAlchemist said:
This is a great comment and I think you really hit on something.

Reviewers could maybe stand to summarize their issues with difficulty as an issue of being engaging or unengaging more often ... but at the same time, I feel like it's usually obvious what reviewers, critics, and players mean when they call a game too easy. At least based on contextual ques. This reminds me of the debate about Mario Odyssey's difficulty. There was a part of the community that disliked how easy the game was and one that didn't dislike that and kept reaffirming that that's how Mario games always are. It was a smaller vocal minority then of course because it was critically lauded, but while saying Odyssey was "too easy" might sound silly in the context of the Mario series, what was being referred to by most people was how braindead so much of the game's content was. Getting most moons simply amounted to not even a lack of challenge, but no challenge whatsoever. As in, not just a lack of difficulty, but no real obstacle to overcome to begin with. It wasn't just a lack of difficulty that people complained about I think; it was a lack of many moons even having a challenge to overcome. It was like the game developers just forgot to put something there, even though it was obviously very purposeful.

To me, stuff like that is absolutely a valid complaint. If your game is essentially so easy people actually start unengaging and getting bored? That's a pretty significant problem. Not saying that applies to Kirby or any easy game, mind you. I think that a lot of this is down to how the game is crafted moreso than just how easy or hard is it.
Click to expand...
The whole thing about Mario Odyssey being 'braindead' was very revealing about the tunnel vision that gamers and game reviewers have. Mario Odyssey was super friendly to a lot of people who got massacred in other Mario games, mainly due to the reflexes and motor skills that those other games require.

The problem with game reviews and difficulty is that reviewers refuse to get out of their Plato cave and appreciate games that aren't tailor made for them. There are many groups of people like small kids, non-gamers, senior people, etc. who want to play and enjoy games, but whenever the industry listens to said groups and develops a game tailor made for those groups, the game review circlejerk can't resist saying "tOo EaSY, iS ThiS GAme MaDE foR ZoMBIes??" (the zombie thing was actually mentioned in a SMO review). It's very annoying and it's why the industry has a massive problem with accessibility.
 
Last edited:
Yzz said:
The whole thing about Mario Odyssey being 'braindead' was very revealing about the tunnel vision that gamers and game reviewers have. Mario Odyssey was super friendly to a lot of people who got massacred in other Mario games, mainly due to the reflexes that those other games require.

The problem with game reviews and difficulty is that reviewers refuse to get out of their Plato cave and appreciate games that aren't tailor made for them. There are many groups of people like small kids, non-gamers, senior people, etc. who want to play and enjoy games, but whenever the industry listens to said groups and develops a game tailor made for those groups, the game review circlejerk can't resist saying "tOo EaSY, iS ThiS GAme MaDE foR ZoMBIes??" (the zombie thing was actually mentioned in a SMO review). It's very annoying and this why the industry has a massive problem with accessibility.
Click to expand...
I half agree with your conclusion.

Super Mario 64 and Sunshine have some absolute bull that later games thankfully cut out. Games like Galaxy are probably the best compromise the series has had. Pretty much every objective was meaningful, but the game still was very penetrable. It also had some rudimentary accessibility qualities (think about how a lot of gamers will probably shake a controller when they are nervous, which in Galaxy activates the biggest life-saver in the game: the spin jump).

The problem with Odyssey, I think, is just that a lot of objectives weren't meaningful. And that's what I think a lot of people actually mean when they complain about difficulty. Worst yet, a lot of the worst objectives ended up being copypasted across levels. These are not excuses for Kirby, mind you, which doesn't seem to have either problem. But more broadly I do think a lot of complaints about difficulty in games are moreso complaints about how rewarding a gameplay experience can feel. I feel like a lot of fairly easy games can actually trick you into feeling accomplished when you complete a task, and that's something Odyssey sometimes lacked imo.

Also Odyssey isn't even consistent about accommodating people with slow reflexes or accessibility issues, because there are very helpful moves exclusive to its motion controls.

Honestly, though? I don't really find game reviewers as a whole were that harsh on Odyssey for its lack of challenge. And Animal Crossing, which ticks off a lot of the boxes you mentioned, got a lot of rave reviews. I do agree with you though that the industry should be more accommodating of different games in general. It's not even just casual games, either: the amount of multiplayer focused titles that get the acclaim of singleplayer games nowadays is pretty low.
 
Quoted by: Yzz
1
Bad faith posting and trolling beginning here and over a series of posts. The team has chosen to action a threadban of one week considering a history of similar behaviour - Donnie, BozPaggs, Hologram
So let me get this straight. According to reviews:

Metroid Dread = Too Hard
Kirby = Too Easy
Elden Ring = Just right

Do I have that correct?
 
Wow, Nintendo has a winner here. I am still playing ER, but I'll jump to Kirby once I am done with the game.

Come on Nintendo, Pikmin, fzero, sin and punishment, star fox, rhythm heaven all deserve their own winner on switch!
 
I like Mario 3D World but one thing that wasnā€˜t really good was that single stages werenā€˜t always matching the world they were in. It wasnā€™t as bad as in New Super Mario Bros U but still it felt sometimes random. This Kirby Game seems more like that it tells a story with the world design and each level. I prefer that.
 
0
Dusa said:
Well tell them I told them that too

Who cares about Elden Ring, it's Kirby time
Click to expand...
I think bias in review scores is an important and valid topic. Especially when games are reviewed lower because of their perceived difficulty. It's important to point out double standards.
 
Nintendianajones64 said:
So let me get this straight. According to reviews:

Metroid Dread = Too Hard
Kirby = Too Easy
Elden Ring = Just right

Do I have that correct?
Click to expand...
This reads like a Facebook meme level of drive by post after a handful of posts actually discussing how difficulty and engagement can work in reviews and game discussion. Edit: did not realize this would devolve to that level of trolling, my bad for engaging with it.
 
Last edited:
Nintendianajones64 said:
Like I said it's a double standard and it's important to point it out.
Click to expand...
Not only is it unimportant, it's not a double standard. They are for different audiences, and there's probably not much crossover between people who reviewed Elden Ring and people who reviewed Kirby. If the difficulty feels like it's holding Metroid back to the reviewers who criticized it, then that's their opinion. It is not some ethical issue or whatever, and you'll feel better once you stop complaining that people liked Elden Ring as much as they did.
 
BotenAnna said:
This reads like a Facebook meme level of drive by post after a handful of posts actually discussing how difficulty and engagement can work in reviews and game discussion.
Click to expand...
sNebp1W.gif
 
0
Dusa said:
Not only is it unimportant, it's not a double standard. They are for different audiences, and there's probably not much crossover between people who reviewed Elden Ring and people who reviewed Kirby. If the difficulty feels like it's holding Metroid back to the reviewers who criticized it, then that's their opinion. It is not some ethical issue or whatever, and you'll feel better once you stop complaining that people liked Elden Ring as much as they did.
Click to expand...
I disagree that's it's not important. And again there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out.
 
Nintendianajones64 said:
Like I said it's a double standard and it's important to point it out.
Click to expand...
I mean, not gonna lie, as someone who's a really big Metroid fan, that's not really what I look for in a Metroid game either? I'm mostly looking for really good exploration and powerups.

I don't mind the difficulty of Dread, either. But the only really challenging Metroid games are Fusion, Samus Returns, and Dread, and even then the latter are much more challenging then the former. That's hardly consistent in a series with as many games as Metroid, and even if we're only talking about the 2D games there was Zero Mission, one of the easiest games in the series, in between Fusion and Samus Returns. This is obviously different from From Soft games, where you go in expecting a challenge in every Souls like they make.

Either way @Dusa is right on both fronts. You really need to let your Elden Ring hate go, you focus on it too much. But also, this thread shouldn't become toxic and should instead be about how great Kirby's reception has been thus far.
 
AngryAlchemist said:
I mean, not gonna lie, as someone who's a really big Metroid fan, that's not really what I look for in a Metroid game either? I'm mostly looking for really good exploration and powerups.

I don't mind the difficulty of Dread, either. But the only really challenging Metroid games are Fusion, Samus Returns, and Dread, and even then the latter are much more challenging then the former. That's hardly consistent in a series with as many games as Metroid, and even if we're only talking about the 2D games there was Zero Mission, one of the easiest games in the series, in between Fusion and Samus Returns. This is obviously different from From Soft games, where you go in expecting a challenge in every Souls like they make.

Either way @Dusa is right on both fronts. You really need to let your Elden Ring hate go, you focus on it too much. But also, this thread shouldn't become toxic and should instead be about how great Kirby's reception has been thus far.
Click to expand...
Okay you need to stop saying I hate Elden Ring because it's 100% false. I think it's a good game. Please don't project your insecurities about the game onto me. Thanks
 
Nintendianajones64 said:
Okay you need to stop saying I hate Elden Ring because it's 100% false. I think it's a good game. Please don't project your insecurities about the game onto me. Thanks
Click to expand...
I mean, not gonna lie, I was going to write "Elden Ring salt" because I can't think of a better descriptor, but pretty sure that sounds more inflammatory than just saying Elden Ring hate (which is not my intent). Regardless the point isn't that you hate Elden Ring but that your posts are needlessly negative and always call back to comparison some Nintendo game to that game. I don't really care whether or not you like the game.
 
Tbh as long as the game is fun, the difficulty shouldn't matter. What this tells me is that if you aren't hard, you'll never be one of the greatest games of all time.
 
Koren Lesthe said:
Gotta love GameKult :
"Game is very good, feels good, can enjoy the game with another player..."

6/10.
Click to expand...


haha, sometimes you read a review that sounds like a 10, and then boom 7! Other times you bet the reviewer hated the game but then they gave the game a good score... I try not to care about scores, but just to find bullet points that I like.
 
BotenAnna said:
This reads like a Facebook meme level of drive by post after a handful of posts actually discussing how difficulty and engagement can work in reviews and game discussion. Edit: did not realize this would devolve to that level of trolling, my bad for engaging with it.
Click to expand...
this is the guy that wrote the "how deep is the rot" thread, just don't engage with it
 
There's not really any kind of double standard at play. Most reviewers will tell you they don't really have any sort of rules they need to follow. It's just their opinion on what worked for them and what didn't. Some people want a challenge in a game, and that's what they are looking for when they play. Others don't mind. Difficulty beyond that is also very subjective, and people struggle with different things or may find walls others don't. Having a range of opinions is pretty nice for people who are interested in that aspect.

This game is getting good/great scores and reviews seem positive from a glance anyways. So it feels a bit strange to fixate on it. I dunno
 
EddyZacianLand said:
One of their negative points is how easy kirby is and that tells me that in order to be the tippy top, it can't be easy, otherwise it wouldn't be a negative
Click to expand...
I mean, "too easy" doesn't mean it has to be hard. That is a really strange perspective to hold, especially since there isn't one kind of difficulty level for Kirby games.
 
Dusa said:
I mean, "too easy" doesn't mean it has to be hard. That is a really strange perspective to hold, especially since there isn't one kind of difficulty level for Kirby games.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen they have all really enjoyed kirby and had loads of fun, so it's not too easy, just not hard and that's a negative for them.

Too easy to me implies braindead.
 
EddyZacianLand said:
One of their negative points is how easy kirby is and that tells me that in order to be the tippy top, it can't be easy, otherwise it wouldn't be a negative
Click to expand...
Why is that important to you? Like, at all...? Reviews are meant as a way to describe a game, so you can see if it matches your tastes in gaming.
 
Well nice to see the game actually scored a little higher than I was expecting

As for the whole Elden Ring stuff, well, most games don't score that high, including the rest of the Souls games, so I don't think that game alone really shows much of a bias in this regard. Especially when plenty of games that are generally easy or have easy difficulty options have no issue scoring that high. Now, within the general gaming community, yeah, a game being too hard won't be treated as valid of a criticism as a game being too easy but that's kinda whatever to me. I never really saw either of those arguments valid or invalid, just a matter of preference, with some exceptions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom