SEGAbits Forums
Gaming => General Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Ben on June 21, 2012, 03:06:15 pm
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UwP7Dxy1dG8/T-N45DjJQxI/AAAAAAAAAFs/rGTg1ryBLFk/s600/blogspot+lollipop+chainsaw.jpg)
http://nintendosega54.blogspot.com/2...rite-game.html
Suda 51 is one of my favorite developers, with some incredible games under his belt. Killer 7 was a disturbing masterpiece, and I mean that in the best possible way. No More Heroes was a lot of fun and a truly unique game, and I couldn’t have been happier to learn that it did well enough to bring Suda 51 and his studio, Grasshopper Manufacture, into the public eye. It was with true excitement that I had looked forward to Grasshopper’s following games, though unfortunately, something happened after No More Heroes, and since then it hasn’t exactly been a smooth ride.
No More Heroes 2 left behind much of the original’s spirit and attitude as it attempted to appeal more to its predecessor’s critics than its fans, while Shadows of the Damned was a unique and memorable action/horror game unfortunately crippled by frustrating game design choices. Now comes their latest, a zombie-killing hack and slash that feels so lazily put together that it’s like they’ve stopped trying. The game’s not completely without merit and Suda 51’s crazy attitude is definitely on full display, but the writing and the gameplay are both so one-note and repetitive that even the developer’s most die-hard fans will be more than happy to see the end credits roll.
Things are not going well at San Romero High School. A Goth student who spent his high school years as an outcast has decided to retaliate against those who have wronged him, and sets a plan in motion to break open the gateway to Rotten World, unleashing a full-on zombie attack on the high school and, soon, the rest of the town. Cheerleader Juliet Starling and her family of zombie hunters plunge headfirst into the action; she’s armed with a chainsaw and her Sensei-trained knowledge of combat, while her family brings weapons and total insanity to the table. Oh, and Juliet also carries with her the head of her boyfriend, Nick, whom she decapitated to save from a zombie bite. He provides sarcastic commentary throughout the adventure, more or less playing the part that Johnson did in Shadows of the Damned.
It’s a fun setup, and there’s no shortage of cool undead bosses to fight, but it’s far below Suda 51’s talent as a writer. This is a guy who’s written what I think is one of the most compelling, twisted, and unpredictable storylines in the history of the medium with Killer 7, and here he’s just in non-stop joke mode. Much of the humor’s centered around Juliet’s sexiness and the way people inappropriately react to it, while other jokes reference everything from Katy Perry to My Chemical Romance, and they deliver laughs just about as often as they crash and burn. Suda 51 collaborated with Hollywood writer James Gunn (the Dawn of the Dead remake, Slither) on the script, and though I laughed a bunch while playing it, I have to say, I expected more from these two than a series of pole dancing jokes and Hot Topic references.
But Lollipop Chainsaw’s not meant to be taken seriously, that much is clear from the outset. The game’s actually structured a bit like an arcade game, with emphasis on replaying levels to boost your score on the online leaderboards; it even features endangered NPCs who you can rescue (if you’re quick enough) ala House of the Dead. The problem is that the gameplay’s just not fun enough to warrant the promised replay value. It’s never a good sign in a beat-em-up when you’re sick of the combat system about 15 minutes into the experience, and while the skills and powerups you can buy from shops improve things a good deal as the game goes on, there’s no getting around the fact that combat feels clunky and repetitive almost throughout. You progress through linear levels and take out wave upon wave of zombies, while gameplay variations such as the boss battles, Grasshopper Manufacture’s typical “video game” segments, not to mention Zombie Baseball, are as hit-or-miss as everything else is.
What keeps you going through the levels is the pacing; cutscenes are frequent, (though unskippable, even if you die and are watching them again, which is unfortunate) and Juliet and Nick’s back and forth banter is the source of a lot of laughs. In the age of Youtube, though, this alone doesn’t justify a purchase. Why buy a game with average gameplay if you can watch its best moments on the internet? Story’s always played a central role in Grasshopper Manufacture’s titles, and that’s awesome, especially when it’s penned by someone like Suda 51. But in this day and age you can’t just write some funny dialogue and call it a day, you have to design a game that also plays well, and that’s simply not the case here.
With the exception of the music and voice acting (including Silent Hill’s Akira Yamaoka, not to mention an incredibly entertaining collection of licensed tracks and the always awesome Tara Strong voicing the main character) this just doesn’t feel like a $60 game. Though it’s running on the Unreal Engine 3 like Shadows of the Damned was, Lollipop Chainsaw looks like an upscaled Wii game for the most part. You take that into account along with its short length and simple gameplay and this feels like a digital title that you should be paying $20 for, not full price. It’s built for replay value; unlockable harder levels of play, tons of items to collect and purchase, plenty of choice in the customization of Juliet, but it needed stronger central gameplay to warrant the return trips, and playing through this again without the novelty of its storyline is about as unappealing to me as anything.
--
Verdict: Lollipop Chainsaw may have been made by some incredibly talented people, but it’s like they were on auto-pilot here. There are a few moments of inspiration, plenty of dialogue that will have you laughing out loud, plus as a great soundtrack to ensure that your playthrough of Lollipop Chainsaw isn’t a total waste of time. There’s fun to be had, without a doubt, but not enough to make up for a stiff combat system, and definitely not enough to warrant a $60 purchase.
Presentation: A fun story with some hilarious dialogue from Suda 51 and James Gunn, though this is work far below the capabilities of each, I feel. The menus feature a cool comic book motif that I wish carried over to the visuals in the game itself. Jokes hit as often as they miss.
Graphics: Grasshopper Manufacture’s sense of style is muted here by a washed out color scheme and bland-looking enemies. Frequent load times on dull load screens. Carries the look of a last generation game upscaled to HD.
Gameplay: Combat plays like an even less fluid No More Heroes 2, and considering the large role that zombie-killing plays in Lollipop Chainsaw, this is a big issue. Upgradeable powerups and some fun mini-games shake things up but can’t make up for core gameplay that’s lacking in as many ways as this one’s is.
Sound: Definitely its strongest aspect. A killer soundtrack and fun voice acting brings some much-needed life to the proceedings.
Replay Value: This game was designed around multiple playthroughs, though how many people will take advantage of this remains to be seen. Game ended for me after a little over 5 hours, and in that time I’ve definitely seen enough.
Overall: 5.5/10
(Note: This is a review of the Xbox 360 version. My reviews go on a .5 scale)
-
If the game drops significantely in the next 3 months, to something like £9.99, I might consider it.
The only other major alternative is Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad, which is more or less the same as this game. But it was a budget release and it has plenty of game modes.
-
Sorry Max, but Onechanbara is nothing like this except it has skimpy-clothed girls fighting zombies. But it's like saying Mario Kart and Gran Turismo are similar because you drive cars in both.
At least that was the feeling I got..
And why does this remind me of Bayonetta so much?
-
I'm still looking forward to picking it up once the price drops :).
-
Sorry Max, but Onechanbara is nothing like this except it has skimpy-clothed girls fighting zombies. But it's like saying Mario Kart and Gran Turismo are similar because you drive cars in both.
At least that was the feeling I got..
And why does this remind me of Bayonetta so much?
It definitely feels like it's trying to be Bayonetta. Though thankfully Tara Strong gives a far more likeable performance (IMO) than whoever voiced Bayonetta, so it made the character far more tolerable for me.
-
Bayonetta's VA is Hellena Taylor:
http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2011/05/04/bayonetta-speaks-an-interview-with-hellena-taylor/
And whaaaaat?? Bayo's voice and character was awesome. Way better than the valley girl voice in this game.
-
Yeah, I mean, I'm not deying that she's a perfectly nice lady, :p , but I just wasn't a big fan of her voice for Bayonetta; it got on my nerves.
-
True, Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad is not quite the same. As a matter of fact, that game's tone is the exact opposite of something like Bayonetta and Lollipop Chainsaw. O:BSS takes it itself too seriously, but ends up it ends up being comical.
What I'm getting at is that from all the reviews that I've been hearing, is that Lollipop Chainsaw would probably get a few better scores if it's was priced like a budget title.
-
That kind of bothers me with video game reviews.
A game at $60 is still the same game when it's price drops to $20. If a game goes on sale, should it's review score increase, because it's suddenly a better value?
I don't think it should affect the game's score.
It's a valid point to be made as far as purchase recommendation, but I don't think it should be a knock against the product itself. Just put it in the review comments or something.
-
That kind of bothers me with video game reviews.
A game at $60 is still the same game when it's price drops to $20. If a game goes on sale, should it's review score increase, because it's suddenly a better value?
I don't think it should affect the game's score.
It's a valid point to be made as far as purchase recommendation, but I don't think it should be a knock against the product itself. Just put it in the review comments or something.
Very good point. I see this all the time, and it annoys me. On the reverse, if I get a game from SEGA to review (which happened with Thor Wii and Mario & Sonic 2012 and the Dreamcast Collection) should I give it an amazing score because I didn't spend a dime?
It's a tough subject to tackle. On one hand, it's bullshit, on the other it makes sense. Like, a game like LA Machineguns/Gunblade NY was bargain priced, and that helped the score. But if it was a $50 game, it would be trashed and proabbly have a 6/10 average.
-
I should make clear that I didn't decrease the score because of its price.....if I got the game for free the score would be the same score. The game is simply a mediocre game, nothing special.
I'm recommending it (on some level) to people who DO like this sort of thing, but not at $60. That's what I'm trying to say. The game's perfectly playable and it has its moments of fun, but all in all, it's nothing special, hence the 5.5/10 score.
That said, Suda 51 fans and fans of this type of humor should consider giving it a try when its price drops. That's the point I'm making; the game's not good enough (IMO) to pay full price for, regardless of whether you like Suda 51 or this type of game or not, but it's funny enough to either rent or try down the road if you can get it for very cheap.
In an age when you can release games digitally for 1/3 of the price, publishers need to consider it for games like this one. And believe me, I'm no fan of digital.
-
Max, have you seen the Onechanbara movie? If you think the games take themselves too seriously you gonna love it :D
I agree with the whole taking price into account in reviews. Games are not items with fixed price.
If you review a restaurant, then price matters (because older dishes won't go budget). In gaming it makes zero sense.
The absurdity comes when I'm looking to get a 10buck 5 year old game and it gets 5/10's, and upon reading the reviews some asshat states "should this game cost 20 dollars the score would be an 8".
So the game's what now? A 16/10?
-
@-nSega54-
Sorry man. I don't want to seem like I'm directing that at you. I do appreciate the suggestion of waiting for a price drop.
It's just a general frustration with a lot of reviews online.
Price should factor into purchase intent. Doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game.
-
"The absurdity comes when I'm looking to get a 10buck 5 year old game and it gets 5/10's, and upon reading the reviews some asshat states "should this game cost 20 dollars the score would be an 8".
So the game's what now? A 16/10?"
I really don't understand the issue, though...I mean, if a game's good, it should be just as good at full price as it would at any other price. The game doesn't get "better" at a lower price, it's either good or it isn't, lol.
So no, the score doesn't increase at a lower price. My point was that I know Suda 51 has a devoted fanbase who wants to play his games; I'm one of them. I'm telling this fanbase to wait for a price drop.
The game feels like a budget title.
-
You have to bear in mind that reviews are made to be read in the space of about a month. After that they aren't really as relevant, or at least there would be so little interest in it (outside of a general curio/interest) that it's not really worth taking into account what the price might be in a few months time.
Most people who are reading those reviews want to know what the game is like NOW at the launch price I would wager. How often do you go reading through reviews for games that came out in January this year or before Christmas last year?
-
nSega, I wasn't directing my comment at you! I just glanced at your review again and realized my example kinda fits your score and price suggestion LOL
I know your score represents what you think about the game's quality, but you think it should be cheaper. That makes sense.
But some pro-reviewers sometimes effectively dumb down scores because of price. This happens a lot in sports games.
FIFA 10 gets a 9/10, for example.
FIFA 11's review states that "the game has improved in every way possible since last year", but gets a 8/10 because "didn't improve enough".
So it's a better game with a lower score. That doesn't make sense.
Sorry if you thought I was being offensive, totally my fault. I love youu :3
-
How often do you go reading through reviews for games that came out in January this year or before Christmas last year?
VERY often really..
I buy a full priced game once every...2 years?
Many people like me are always on a budget. And usually get games on the cheap. And I'm interested what cheap games are good.
Maybe I'm the minority..but yeah it bothers me quite a bit.
-
I'm right with crackdude.
I very rarely buy games at full price. There are a few exceptions (first party Nintendo titles that will never drop in price, and Uncharted games), but when pretty much every $60 retail release is guaranteed to drop down to $40 in 5 months or less, then drop down to $30 or $20 not long after that, I just can't justify buying them right away.
I get left out of the online conversation when a game first comes out, but it's worth the savings of $20-$40 per game for me.
The summer time is generally when I get caught up on games that came out the previous holiday season.
-
nSega, I wasn't directing my comment at you! I just glanced at your review again and realized my example kinda fits your score and price suggestion LOL
I know your score represents what you think about the game's quality, but you think it should be cheaper. That makes sense.
But some pro-reviewers sometimes effectively dumb down scores because of price. This happens a lot in sports games.
FIFA 10 gets a 9/10, for example.
FIFA 11's review states that "the game has improved in every way possible since last year", but gets a 8/10 because "didn't improve enough".
So it's a better game with a lower score. That doesn't make sense.
Sorry if you thought I was being offensive, totally my fault. I love youu :3
It's all good dude, lol, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. As far as people lowering scores because of price, I don't see anything wrong with it. People shouldn't place emphasis on scores anyway, they should be reading the review itself. Score is just a number, and not something that should be treated as a be-all-end-all thing. The written content of a review is what should allow you to decide if a game's for you or not.
Again, we're in an age when games don't have to be $60. Games (like this one, IMO) can be released on XBLA/PSN for $20. So yeah, I do think it's worth mentioning, because most people do not like paying high prices for a game they can beat in 4 hours, and yeah, developers should take that into account; if you're making a full-priced retail game, you have to do more than stripper jokes and a short length.
-
From what I see of week to week sales figures, outside of some rare cases day one buyers are the majority. It seems that for the bigger sellers especially, they have big day one sales then really dwindle down a lot after that.
-
I agree that the important part of a review is the text, not the score. But the score serves as a comparison medium. And as such it doesn't seem fair to compare a game less favorably to other because at launch it was more expensive, while the game on itself is better than the other one.
Though it is always vital to talk about the game's value in a review I think.
Well, something like FIFA or Call of Duty will only lower the price when a new one comes out, making the previous one obsolete. So it makes sense a day-one purchase.
I think a nice way to score games would be a "How much I would pay for this game" score.
-
I think a nice way to score games would be a "How much I would pay for this game" score.
But wait, wha? Then that's making score (and price) THE defining factor. Which is what I thought you were against?
Ah!!! So confusing.
-
I think he means review the game as it is, with price out of the picture. Then next to the score the reviewer could state what they'd pay for the game, or what they'd feel comfortable with paying. Like, $60 for MvC3 is too much in my opinion. I'd rather pay $30.
Personally I'd do away with price defining the score all together, because who knows what a dollar means to somebody. When Sonic 4 Episode 2's price was revealed, I read a ton of comments from people moaning about the price (not here) saying they'd have to save up their money. To me, saving up $15 is a joke. I have $15, its no issue to me. So when I read a review and they give a game a poor score because $15 is too much for them, it makes it hard for me to figure out how to trust the score. Like, if something like $15 is a non-issue for me, would the review score be higher? Probably, considering price was a big factor in the review.
-
To me the whole issue with price being important is understandable. When you drop 60 USD dollars, you want to feel like you are getting your money's worth, simple as that.
I'm a bargain bin hunter, I play the waiting game till there's an affordable enough price. That's the joy of delayed grafication.
Now despite the price tag, Lollipop Chainsaw seems the kind of game I'm willing to get far down the road, when the inevitable markdown arrives.
-
Personally I'd do away with price defining the score all together, because who knows what a dollar means to somebody. When Sonic 4 Episode 2's price was revealed, I read a ton of comments from people moaning about the price (not here) saying they'd have to save up their money. To me, saving up $15 is a joke. I have $15, its no issue to me. So when I read a review and they give a game a poor score because $15 is too much for them, it makes it hard for me to figure out how to trust the score. Like, if something like $15 is a non-issue for me, would the review score be higher? Probably, considering price was a big factor in the review.
You're looking at it from a different angle.
Yes, dollar value is different for everyone and that's totally valid. To some, they literally can't afford $15, and you can. Okay, that makes sense.
But that's not exactly where I'm coming from. I'm thinking more along the lines of something else. I'm going to put out a thought here (one I disagree with; I really enjoyed Sonic 4: Episode 2 far better than Sonic CD) but here's what I'm talking about:
Okay, Sonic 4: Episode 2 is selling for $15. That's at the high end of pricing for digital-only titles on XBLA/PSN, but it's common pricing for NEW games with this type of hype. But then Sonic CD can be purchased for $5. Is it worth paying 3 times that price for a game that is "not as good"?
See what I'm saying? It's not an issue of being "able to afford" $15, it's an issue of "maybe there are better games I can buy for cheaper or for equal pricing to that relatively high asking price."
"Hey, I can afford to pay $15, no problem, but is the game worth paying $15? for?"
That's sort of the issue. Gamers have lots of games that they're interested in and that they want to buy. I think they want to know which games are better value for their money. A gamer with only $50 or $60 to spend at this moment may want a game that'll get them the most for their money. If you were only going to pay full price for one and wait for a drop on the other, and I were to recommend either Xenoblade Chronicles or Mass Effect 3, I'd recommend Xenoblade, a 60-70 hour game...over ME3.
I didn't harp on that in my reviews of either Xenoblade or ME3 (I think they're both worth $50-$60 and didn't mention price at all in my reviews of either) but I have a section in almost all of my reviews for Replay Value where I almost always mention the length because that's important to most people.
The only reason I mentioned price for Lollipop Chainsaw is because it was a game clearly developed on a low budget and a game that, I felt, based on its quality and the amount offered, should have launched for a lower asking price; It was a rare instance where I felt strongly enough to mention it, and I think gamers want to know that. Again, it's not the main criticism I'm leveling against the game; the game is what it is and it will always be what it is, even with a lower price.
However, my point in bringing up price was to tell Suda 51 fans that in SOME WAYS, the game is still worth experiencing, just maybe for a lower price. In other words, at 5.5/10, this is NOT a recommendation. But if you can find it for a budget price, you may find its many flaws and uninspired gameplay more forgivable. Again, this will *not* make the game any better, but at a lower price, you may be more willing to look the other way regarding certain major issues with it.
I think price is perfectly valid to bring up, on occasion. It's not something I do all the time, but price is fairly important to people right now, it seems.
-
But wait, wha? Then that's making score (and price) THE defining factor. Which is what I thought you were against?
Ah!!! So confusing.
Kind of, yes. But completely disregarding the game's actual price.
Example:
I review Game X and give it a 30$ score.
That means that I would buy that game at 30$ because it's what I think it's worth. In my opinion you shouldn't waste more that 30$ on Game X.
If Game X came out at 70$ it means you should wait. If you find it on a 10$ bargain, means you should get it.
This way, the score shows that the best games are worth full price, while others are worth waiting for a price-drop.
~~~
I was just giving out an idea, though. It is not ideal. Mainly for Barry's reason.
If I can wipe my ass with 100$ bills, money isn't a problem.