Zero Punctuation: Knack

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Its funny you bring up it being similar to Crash since it had some of the same people who made Crash.

Wait six months at least before buying any next gen console or at least until Christmas 2014. More if in Australia. I paid $850 to get a Dreamcast and couple of games when it came out. Interest in it died as soon as the PS2 was rumoured to be released.

Zeriah:

IrisNetwork:

The thought that it should be "nut-ella" because it's got nuts makes sense, but he's right. It's "new-tella".

In Australia, it is most definitely marketed as Nut-ella, as you can see from this ad.

Why am I being quoted here? I never said that. @_@
Natella? Nootella? Neutella? I don't really care. Too much sweet stuff gives me a headache.

IrisNetwork:

Zeriah:

IrisNetwork:

The thought that it should be "nut-ella" because it's got nuts makes sense, but he's right. It's "new-tella".

In Australia, it is most definitely marketed as Nut-ella, as you can see from this ad.

Why am I being quoted here? I never said that. @_@
Natella? Nootella? Neutella? I don't really care. Too much sweet stuff gives me a headache.

Whoops something weird must have happened during the quote, it was directed at mjc0961.

joest01:
Has anyone tried playing Knack on hard difficulty.

Yep.

joest01:
It looks like the kind of game that could come into its own when played on hard?

No, it isn't in any way. Hard mode just exacerbates the frustratingly brittle gameplay.

I don't care to read other comments, so obligatory knack pun. Why bother with a PS4 when one can always go crazy with the PS2? You know, back in the day when backwards compatibility was still a thing?

Haven't we been through this kind of crap dredging for just about every console launch since somewhere about the SEGA CD-ROM days? As far as I remember, every console starts with a load of crappy games where the developers are basically experimenting with the APIs and limits of the machine, and, because their focus is on the technology, they're not thinking too critically about actual game design. There may only be 1 or 2 launch titles that actually act like a real game; the rest is just low-quality junk. I'd say the main difference, recently, is that after the experimental punching of the console to learn its limits and get a handle on the APIs, the developers quickly turn to creating the same games as last generation, only with shinier graphics (because, strangely, as much as gamers complain otherwise, that's exactly what they want, as evidenced by how they vote with their wallets).

Here in the Yorkshire Ghetto we agree, this generation does seem to be lacking something....
A plot! Kinda like Knack!

that's not a goatee. a goatee connected to a mustache is called a van dyke

Aardvaarkman:

randomthefox:
Can't think of a single game console that wouldn't have benefited from delaying its launch for about a year is fucking right.

But then the bulk of games for the consoles would be delayed for another year after that. It's not like delaying the console would suddenly make developers work on titles for it, and it would magically launch with a huge library of quality games.

The console really has to be released first for developers to start working on it, outside of the few that will do launch titles. It's just the nature of the beast. If you delay the launch, developers will just delay their development and keep developing for the consoles that are actually out. Then there's the competitive aspect. If your competition has a brand new console, and you're still shipping a 7-year old one, then that makes you look bad.

What evidence are you basing this claim off? The way Rayman Legends was finished being developed and then withheld by the publisher from being released until there were other platforms to release it on? Hell, they didn't even let it get released on the WiiU and then released the multiplatform versions later, they held back the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

It can, and has, been done. Give a time line for when they're allowed to work on the game, cut em off when they run out, and then just don't release the game until the console comes out.

Morons who don't understand the first thing about the game industry seem to be under this delusion that every moment a game isn't on the store shelves is time it is being worked on by the developers. You think, when they say a game comes out on Oct 12th for example, that means it's still in development all the way up until Oct. 11th and when the clock strikes midnight they ship it out, which is clinically untrue. In all likelyhood the game was taken away from the devs in august, months before the release date, and that's just a general hypothetical.

you're apparently also applying this (stupid) line of thought to the consoles themselves, thinking that because they aren't on store shelves means they're still being made and thus not available to the developers to work on and develop games for, which.... I don't even have a rational dismissal for since it is so blatantly incorrect an assumption that my mind just automatically leaps to bashing my head against the wall for even attempting to converse with someone so devoid of common sense. Not just because A: the consoles are finished before they're released and are granted to peeps before commercial availability such as reviewers and game devs already (not to mention DEVELOPMENT KITS which are literally given to game devs to work on making games for the thing before it is finished being made, also) and thus delaying the release to the public would INDEED mean a larger library of titles upon official launch to the market, and B: most launch titles are just games that were originally being developed for the "last gen" anyway and are being bumped up (see Ryse) which leads me to C: these new consoles are the absolute worst batch to use that mindset on because there is no noticeable discernible difference in how they function compared to the last gen aside from framerate performance so the entire argument collapses in on itself when used in the examples before us on that merit alone.

Besides, MOST games are developed for and on computers and ported after the fact, like making a beautiful painting and then trimming the edges to make sure it fits in a verity of different frames, the few (admittedly AAA) titles that don't are the exception not the rule.

The only negative to this strategy is some of the games that would make up the consoles release library might look a little dated compared to others because they were finished about a year before, but most launch titles suck anyway and the good ones stand up just fine after a period of time (for example, ZombiU for the Wii-U is still damn good even all this time later), so really you're just changing the context of the release competition they'd be compared to.

The competition element is also irrelevant because in my hypothetical fantasy scenario of the game industry actually making intelligent decisions, we also have a single universal console that can play every game ever released ever from the Atari on to any future releases moving forward, because when you're enjoying some pie in the sky semantics you might as well put some nice whipped cream on top too.

randomthefox:
What evidence are you basing this claim off?

Basic business sense. If a console is not available to consumers, then why would you waste your developer resources developing games for a system that isn't available yet?

The way Rayman Legends was finished being developed and then withheld by the publisher from being released until there were other platforms to release it on? Hell, they didn't even let it get released on the WiiU and then released the multiplatform versions later, they held back the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

And Rayman Legends is obviously a very typical case, and one of the best-selling AAA games released, right? Oh no, that's wrong.

How many developers do you expect will be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars developing a game, and then just withhold it from sale, until the console manufacturer takes its own sweet time releasing the console? The publishers are not charities, their goal is to make the most profits as soon as possible. Good luck asking them to just wait around for a while before releasing a title they have invested so much money and time into.

It can, and has, been done. Give a time line for when they're allowed to work on the game, cut em off when they run out, and then just don't release the game until the console comes out.

Yeah, because developers and publishers will love working to the console makers' time schedule.

Do you think there might be a reason that major titles like GTA V and Bioshock Infinite were released for the "last" generation consoles rather than the new ones? It's because they know which side their toast is buttered on, and they will sell a lot more by making games for the consoles with the huge install bases and tested development procedures, rather than an unknown quantity, where the manufacturers can't even keep up with the demand for consoles.

Morons who don't understand the first thing about the game industry seem to be under this delusion that every moment a game isn't on the store shelves is time it is being worked on by the developers.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here, or its relevance.

You think, when they say a game comes out on Oct 12th for example, that means it's still in development all the way up until Oct. 11th and when the clock strikes midnight they ship it out, which is clinically untrue.

No, I don't think that. What evidence do you have that would make you think that I think that? You seem to be attacking straw men.

you're apparently also applying this (stupid) line of thought to the consoles themselves, thinking that because they aren't on store shelves means they're still being made and thus not available to the developers to work on and develop games for, which.... I don't even have a rational dismissal for since it is so blatantly incorrect an assumption

No, I'm not.

And speaking of blatantly incorrect assumptions, once again you're just making stuff up about how I supposedly think - once again, a straw man.

that my mind just automatically leaps to bashing my head against the wall for even attempting to converse with someone so devoid of common sense.

And the ad-hominems continue...

So, "common sense" to you is that developers should devote their resources to develop new games for a console that hasn't been released, that has no customers, while the existing consoles already have millions of devoted customers. Okaaaaay.

And if it's such common sense, then why have none of the console manufacturers, game publishers or developers followed this wisdom? They have rather large businesses as stake. If it were so obvious and easy, then why didn't they follow your sage advice?

The competition element is also irrelevant because in my hypothetical fantasy scenario of the game industry actually making intelligent decisions, we also have a single universal console that can play every game ever released ever from the Atari on to any future releases moving forward, because when you're enjoying some pie in the sky semantics you might as well put some nice whipped cream on top too.

How would the "universal game console" be an intelligent business decision? Who makes this universal console? And why would a company want competing companies' games to run on the system? A huge portion of the profits in the console business come from licensing fees to develop games for a particular console, or exclusivity for first-party titles. A "universal console" would put an end to that revenue stream.

Note that I' not saying that this is bad from a gamer's perspective, but I'm talking about the reality of running a business with massive budgets, that could easily be bankrupted due to volatility in the market.

So Knack was kinda shit?
And nobody was surprised that day
Unless...
Please raise hands all who were surprised
That would make forced sterilization much more simpler
Because if someone was surprised by Knack being a bad game, in the name of humanity we simply must remove your genetic material from genepool.
Nothing personal, just trying to make humanity better.

On a sidenote- it is funny that the most thought provoking discussion here is about sugar filled brown margarine with smell of chocolate.

Since Mark Cerny was revealed to be the lead architect for the PS4 and also involved with Knack to some degree, I had high hopes that the game would display a few glaring examples of the types of environments or gameplay that the hardware was capable of that the previous generation simply wasn't (not a shining example, but at least try to show off.) This was a wild assumption I suppose, and I'm rather disappointed that Knack is your standard PS2 mascot game with decent-looking trailer cutscenes.

Mascot games, mind you, certainly need a comeback since the newest characters I recall that have spawned a franchise were the PS2 exclusive Sly, Ratchet & Clank, and Jak & Daxter. Recently there has just been the collect-a-thon one that is Skylanders (and maybe the iOS Angry Birds..) Hell, they're trying damned hard to market Minecraft as a "mascot game" and it doesn't work very well when the only consistently recognizable character looks like a poorly made dog toy..

At least it's not like the PS3's horrid launch line-up. Where soon afterward every game released had to showcase some amount of six-axis support (which had consistently bad results.) From what others have been saying about Xbox 1, anything that isn't cross-platform has been a showcase for how abysmal Kinect 2 is. Since that extra amount you're spending is for that awful Kinect 2 to be sharing box space with the console, I'm quite glad that the PS4 wasn't released with the new eye toy.

Remember when the launch title that was hyped for the 3DS release was Pilot Wings Resort? Suffice to say, most consoles have had poor launches..

Aardvaarkman:

randomthefox:
What evidence are you basing this claim off?

Basic business sense. If a console is not available to consumers, then why would you waste your developer resources developing games for a system that isn't available yet?

The way Rayman Legends was finished being developed and then withheld by the publisher from being released until there were other platforms to release it on? Hell, they didn't even let it get released on the WiiU and then released the multiplatform versions later, they held back the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

And Rayman Legends is obviously a very typical case, and one of the best-selling AAA games released, right? Oh no, that's wrong.

How many developers do you expect will be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars developing a game, and then just withhold it from sale, until the console manufacturer takes its own sweet time releasing the console? The publishers are not charities, their goal is to make the most profits as soon as possible. Good luck asking them to just wait around for a while before releasing a title they have invested so much money and time into.

It can, and has, been done. Give a time line for when they're allowed to work on the game, cut em off when they run out, and then just don't release the game until the console comes out.

Yeah, because developers and publishers will love working to the console makers' time schedule.

Do you think there might be a reason that major titles like GTA V and Bioshock Infinite were released for the "last" generation consoles rather than the new ones? It's because they know which side their toast is buttered on, and they will sell a lot more by making games for the consoles with the huge install bases and tested development procedures, rather than an unknown quantity, where the manufacturers can't even keep up with the demand for consoles.

Morons who don't understand the first thing about the game industry seem to be under this delusion that every moment a game isn't on the store shelves is time it is being worked on by the developers.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here, or its relevance.

You think, when they say a game comes out on Oct 12th for example, that means it's still in development all the way up until Oct. 11th and when the clock strikes midnight they ship it out, which is clinically untrue.

No, I don't think that. What evidence do you have that would make you think that I think that? You seem to be attacking straw men.

you're apparently also applying this (stupid) line of thought to the consoles themselves, thinking that because they aren't on store shelves means they're still being made and thus not available to the developers to work on and develop games for, which.... I don't even have a rational dismissal for since it is so blatantly incorrect an assumption

No, I'm not.

And speaking of blatantly incorrect assumptions, once again you're just making stuff up about how I supposedly think - once again, a straw man.

that my mind just automatically leaps to bashing my head against the wall for even attempting to converse with someone so devoid of common sense.

And the ad-hominems continue...

So, "common sense" to you is that developers should devote their resources to develop new games for a console that hasn't been released, that has no customers, while the existing consoles already have millions of devoted customers. Okaaaaay.

And if it's such common sense, then why have none of the console manufacturers, game publishers or developers followed this wisdom? They have rather large businesses as stake. If it were so obvious and easy, then why didn't they follow your sage advice?

The competition element is also irrelevant because in my hypothetical fantasy scenario of the game industry actually making intelligent decisions, we also have a single universal console that can play every game ever released ever from the Atari on to any future releases moving forward, because when you're enjoying some pie in the sky semantics you might as well put some nice whipped cream on top too.

How would the "universal game console" be an intelligent business decision? Who makes this universal console? And why would a company want competing companies' games to run on the system? A huge portion of the profits in the console business come from licensing fees to develop games for a particular console, or exclusivity for first-party titles. A "universal console" would put an end to that revenue stream.

Note that I' not saying that this is bad from a gamer's perspective, but I'm talking about the reality of running a business with massive budgets, that could easily be bankrupted due to volatility in the market.

I like how you're supposedly speaking on behalf of the business ethics of the industry when every word you've said only continues to show how you know absolutely nothing about any facet of how the industry works, from development, to publishing, to even basic marketing on down. "Intelligent business decisions" -_- fucking please, if short term financial endevers the likes of which even EA would accuse of not even attempting to pay attention to the big picture qualify as "intelligent" to you, it's not wonder I feel like an idiot by association for even bothering to respond to this inanity.

And of course, because you don't admit to the accusations, suppositions arrived at based on the evidence of what you've said can be safely brushed aside as merely attacking "straw men." Any attempt at debate or discussion with you would be pointless it seems, since you'd merely dismiss valid points as irrelevant by erroneously changing the context of the conversations, and crushing all other points under the ohsoallknowing and clearly well educated standpoint of the businessmen. Not that I'm saying the businessmen aren't educated, just you.

You ever considered a position in politics? You'd probably do really well.

randomthefox:

I like how you're supposedly speaking on behalf of the business ethics of the industry...

Uh, when did I mention "business ethics" at all? I'm of the opinion that business is mostly unethical.

... when every word you've said only continues to show how you know absolutely nothing about any facet of how the industry works, from development, to publishing, to even basic marketing on down.

In what way? If I know nothing about the industry, then maybe you can explain why nobody in the industry follows your "develop games for unreleased platforms" and "delay release of new platforms" business models?

"Intelligent business decisions" -_- fucking please, if short term financial endevers the likes of which even EA would accuse of not even attempting to pay attention to the big picture qualify as "intelligent" to you, it's not wonder I feel like an idiot by association for even bothering to respond to this inanity.

Uh, you were the one who mentioned "intelligent business decisions," not me.

And of course, because you don't admit to the accusations, suppositions arrived at based on the evidence of what you've said can be safely brushed aside as merely attacking "straw men."

This sentence doesn't make any sense. What accusations am I supposed to admit to? And you do know what a "straw man" is, right? It's what you were doing in your previous posts, where you fabricated arguments I never made, in order to knock them down.

Any attempt at debate or discussion with you would be pointless it seems, since you'd merely dismiss valid points as irrelevant by erroneously changing the context of the conversations, and crushing all other points under the ohsoallknowing and clearly well educated standpoint of the businessmen. Not that I'm saying the businessmen aren't educated, just you.

You ever considered a position in politics? You'd probably do really well.

I never changed the context of the discussion. If anything, you did, by making up imaginary arguments that I never made. And, as usual, it seems are quick to dish out personal insults rather than discuss any of these topics reasonably.

Just to clarify, Yahtzee is paid for his animation work, not his bad puns and bitter tone, in case his claim to the contrary was confusing anyone.

I know I'm late to the party, but the "Bored now!" bit made me laugh harder than I have in a long time. Thank you!

I've gotta say I actually really enjoyed this game. I don't understand why he was so negative about it. It did play a lot like crash bandicoot, and just like crash one or two hits would kill you. It's not unbalanced just difficult. I think Ben Yahtzee needs to start being more consistent in his reviews. Back in the Bowser's Inside Story review he complains that just because it's a kids game doesn't mean it has to be easy. Well, this is a game geared towards children and is just as unforgiving as the old games from our childhood. It's not unbalanced. It pretty much teaches you from the very first that enemies are going to hit hard so you better not get hit, just the same as a game like Crash Bandicoot, where you could only get hit once unless you had the mask guy. However, I do agree that the graphics and setting could have used some work and it would have been interesting to see some character development from Knack rather than just having him as the blank face "I'm gonna punch you" guy.

Gotta feel bad for any kiddies who probably begged and pleaded to get get this game because despite its child friendly appearance I can't imagine they would have the skill or patience to deal with the constant cheap deaths.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here