Beautiful Katamari Review

[-FCM-]

After reading that review, I just want to thank you guys for keeping it about what videogames are really about: fun and soul. I can't help but think that some of the sites that graded it down for "nothing new" are run by people who get boners when they pick up a bag of bold, extreme doritos, now even bolder and more extreme. There are times when fancy averaging systems and progressive thought get in the way of whether a game is actually good or not, and games such as those in the Katamari series just need an exception.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Yeah, fun and soul are great and all, but another important thing is depth. When the entire plot is "roll shit up to make daddy proud", then you really have no depth. Especially when you have done this 3 times before, exactly the same, with no changes, at all. If all games were ranked simply on fun and soul, games like LocoRoco, Guitar Hero, and even Stranglehold should automatically get A's, while games like Ghost Recon and even Halo should get C's or lower.
Just having a fun game (or in this case, a cute game) does not truly make it a good game.

 

[grandmagoodtimes]

I <3 Katamari (but only on the PS2). End of discussion.

 

[sparky87]

i personally dont like these games. rolling stuff in a ball over and over just isnt fun...but rolling other things are.

 

[Hawk_one]

I think there is an interesting point of principle that could be discussed here: Exactly who are the game reviews written for?

In this case, we have two separate groups: People who have already played the previous Katamari games, and then those that haven't. Which group should be mostly focused on when writing the review?

On one hand, the first group might well want to know whether or not there are any substantial changes to the game formula. And if the changes (if any significant) are for the better or worse.

But, on the other hand, there will be plenty of new gamers who hasn't tried out the Katamari games; especially since this one is on a different console than the previous three games. Yes, there will be some console overlap, but I wouldn't base my reviews on spending time trying to figure out just how big that is. So, shouldn't the reviewer, insofar it's possible at all, at least try to imagine how this game will feel for someone who hasn't played it?

It will of course, be a matter of balance, as both of these points needs to get out. And as I read GR's review of Beautiful Katamari, it was easy enough for me to gleam the information I needed (as someone who already has one of the games), while the grading (and reasoning behind it) seemed to be curtailed for how a new Katamari player would feel it, maybe a little bit influenced by the fact that the reviewer's earlier experiences.

Of course, the balance might not have to be the same everywhere. A sports games series with annual releases, for example, may well be more likely to have a lot of recurring buyers. Or, say, Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80s, which most definitely was bought almost only by people who owns at least one of the previous GH games, not to mention that it was released on the same console as GH 1 and 2. To go a bit short on the gameplay mechanics (which was completely unchanged) and focus on the setlist would be perfectly acceptable for that game.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that any reviewer worth his/her salt is pondering these points. And if they aren't, then hopefully Duke's wrath will rain down upon them.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Well, my question is why is it that this game gets a B+, while R&CF:TOD gets a "B", even though it is a very fun game with the best story and gameplay in any of the series, with the most replay value and the best weapons, not to mention it is one of the most visually pleasing game I have ever played. Just because it has no multiplayer is like saying that Bioshock deserves a B because it has no multiplayer, when it needs no multiplayer. Sure, the last two had multiplayers, but they were not nearly as good as this one.
I'm sorry, I'm just angry.

 

[AcidTrip]

Nothing wrong with being angry at a fledgling system and your lack of good purchasing skills.

I keed.

I understand that. I personally think its down to the individual reviewer. I hardly believe that the GR Staff have tribal meetings a la Survivor where they cast votes for the grades of each game. Although, that'd be funny as shit to see.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Nothing wrong with being angry at a fledgling system and your lack of good purchasing skills.

But wait, I didn't buy a Wii.

 

[Voxen]

Roger Ebert once said that a review should be written for yourself (the reviewer). Tell them how you feel about the game, since that's all you can do, but at the same time describe it well enough that someone who might be interested in that type of thing gets a good idea of what it is.

 

[TheNesMan]

Roger Ebert once said that a review should be written for yourself (the reviewer). Tell them how you feel about the game, since that's all you can do, but at the same time describe it well enough that someone who might be interested in that type of thing gets a good idea of what it is.

Roger Ebert also said video games aren't art.

 

[used44]

Roger Ebert also said, "More potato skins, please."

 

[TheNesMan]

So can we conclude he's a douche already?