My only problem is that it doesn't seem to me that you guys grasp the meaning of the ratings. I still find it hard to swallow the idea that BB deserves only three stars. Three stars mean "decent, but you miss nothing by skipping it", and if someone said that on the day of BB's release -- when there were no other 720p 2D fighters worth playing, essentially -- it would have been a crime. Dragon's Crown is a 1-star game mechanically, but 5-star aesthetically (if not indeed 6-star), so in my unfinished review I give it 3 stars, and for anyone who is interested in and fascinated by 2D graphics I'd even give it 4 stars -- meaning a "recommendation" -- meaning "try this game".
That doesn't mean that I advise people to sink 40 hours into Dragon's Crown. I played it for 6 -- until stages started repeating -- and then stopped. But during those 6 hours I did get a 3-star level enjoyment out of the game, if not indeed a 4-star level for the first half an hour or so, despite the 1-star mechanics.
I mean, all the mechanical issues you guys mentioned obviously took weeks if not months to surface, but what about the level of fun people were having BEFORE they surfaced? Never mind that a lot of players came into the party late and learned about all the issues immediately via YouTube before even touching the game -- if some aspies want to ruin the experience for themselves it's not my problem. But I find it hard to stomach the idea that BB is a decent but mediocre game that no one should go out of their way to play. If you enjoy fighting and/or 2D games I think you OWE it to yourself to try this game out. Maybe not so much today, that there are alternatives, but CERTAINLY when it originally came out, and for several years afterwards, even if its updates and sequels had never been released. Is taking the 2D fighter to 720p widescreen worth nothing then? Is it not worth at least an extra star?
I think you guys are arguing between yourselves if a game is worth 3.7 or 4.9 stars, but since pretty much EVERY SINGLE game you play is worth above 3 stars, because that's how highly evolved the FTG genre is, when it comes to rating these games you entirely forget to compare them to the REST of the games on the market, including in other genres, and expect perfection that takes 1000 hours to master to give a game any more than an average mark.
I don't know what I am going to do about this. Maybe we'll stick to the plan and give 3/5 to the original and 4/5 to some of the sequels I guess. But something inside me tells me they should all get 4. I feel that an injustice is being done otherwise.
As for this:
quash wrote:The game was obviously not all bad, and I don't want to make it sound like it was; it was just not in any way what you would have expected from the same developer that gave you Accent Core two years earlier. It was a slick looking game with some neat ideas, but it didn't do enough to make sure all those neat ideas would actually work well in practice.
It makes sense if you consider that, had they stuck too close to AC, people would have complained that it's too similar. That they got a chance to keep making updates and improving their original concept is proof that the players found the game worth playing and supporting: whether this was because the mechanics held promise, or because of the aesthetics, is one thing I would have liked to see answered in a review, because the game has had a long history compared to the vast majority of FTGs that have been released in the 10 or so years that this renaissance has so far lasted, and if this was due to its aesthetic superiority it must mean that aesthetics, too, count for something in the genre, as opposed to mechanics trumping everything to the extent that players would have been perfectly happy to play with ACTUAL HITBOXES as long as the mechanics of the game were the best mechanics ever.