Yooka-Laylee Review - Banjo-Threeie

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Yooka-Laylee Review - Banjo-Threeie

Yooka-Laylee is a faithful Banjo-Kazooie sequel in everything but name.

Read Full Article

Does anyone know how this handles on consoles? I heard that on the xbone it doesn't run that well and there is a lot of frame stuttering.

Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

I thought you were joking.
It makes me sad that you weren't.

ChaplainOrion:
Does anyone know how this handles on consoles? I heard that on the xbone it doesn't run that well and there is a lot of frame stuttering.

Apparently the PS4 version is the worse version according to the reviews. And with PC coming in 7 days we'll see how optimized the game is overall.

Eclipse Dragon:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

I thought you were joking.
It makes me sad that you weren't.

Welp. He kinda warned us when he hinted that people should hold off on purchasing when the embargo was still up.

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

AzrealMaximillion:

ChaplainOrion:
Does anyone know how this handles on consoles? I heard that on the xbone it doesn't run that well and there is a lot of frame stuttering.

Apparently the PS4 version is the worse version according to the reviews. And with PC coming in 7 days we'll see how optimized the game is overall.

I played the game on PC and had no optimization issues

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

That's how Jim scores his game based purely on whether or not he likes them. Always has.
Assasin's Creed II- 4/10.

Steven Bogos:

AzrealMaximillion:

ChaplainOrion:
Does anyone know how this handles on consoles? I heard that on the xbone it doesn't run that well and there is a lot of frame stuttering.

Apparently the PS4 version is the worse version according to the reviews. And with PC coming in 7 days we'll see how optimized the game is overall.

I played the game on PC and had no optimization issues

Seems the PC version may be the best version from what you're saying. Because the console versions are not getting treated well.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

That's how he described the game: Broken due not only immitating the gameplay idea of Banjo-Kazooie, but also pretty much everything else, including the flaws.

So I love 3D Platformers like Toy Story 2, Super Mario 64, The Spyro Games, The Sly Cooper Games, Spongebob Squarepants Battle For Bikini Bottom, Donkey Kong 64, and even the Gex games. However, I couldn't get into the Banjo games for some reason. Maybe it's because it didn't have as much platforming as it did puzzles that I couldn't figure out in a fun way. My friends even said it was like a Nintendo Power game. It didn't help that it had some things that are archaic by todays standards like collectibles resetting when you leave a level or getting a game over screen when you want to save.

I do intend to get this game but I hope those flaws are fixed with this one.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

And, in my opinion, it takes a true idiot to insult a reviewer simply because your standards don't align with another's. Digital Homicide learned that the hard way. People have been reviewing Persona 5, and I'm not losing my mind when it's rated less than a 9--even when there aren't any complaints or issues brought up to really speak of. Sometimes it's just not a game they enjoy, and the score will reflect that. Hell, Andromeda should be getting nailed with 5/10s at the very least by that standard, considering the numerous glitches and problems I've seen crop up, not to mention the news coming out recently about all the corners Bioware cut to make it on the really cheap.

Then again, comments like this are why I use the programs I use--I don't like rewarding lazily written "top ten" buzzfeed articles and individuals with an extreme lack of tact.

Steven Bogos:
A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken.

Really? A functionally broken game is worth more than 1?

It amuses me to contrast the two reviews. They both state outright that the game is almost exactly like Banjo Kazooie. The disagreement seems to be mostly about whether or not that's a GOOD thing.

Eclipse Dragon:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

I thought you were joking.
It makes me sad that you weren't.

Makes me sad too. It didn't go down for Persona 5 though. Persona fans are better than YL fans.

Either way I mainly disagree with Jim on nearly every review he has ever made(Bloodborne and Nier Automata are the only ones I have read and went "I agree with this 100%") so I'll still get it.

RaikuFA:
It didn't go down for Persona 5 though. Persona fans are better than YL fans.

It can't have been down for long. Never failed to respond for me. Anyway, Persona 5 got an 8.5 rather than a 2...

Pyrian:

Steven Bogos:
A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken.

Really? A functionally broken game is worth more than 1?

It amuses me to contrast the two reviews. They both state outright that the game is almost exactly like Banjo Kazooie. The disagreement seems to be mostly about whether or not that's a GOOD thing.

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

Regardless of Jim's review score, a functionally broken game is a defective product and deserves nothing above a 0/10. But that's really beside the point here.

Apparently Jim really, really heavily disliked this game, and he expressed that in both writing and numbers. If you have this many criticisms, why would you give it a score anywhere close to 'average' (translation: '5/10')? The scale from 0 to 10 exists because every spot on that gradient is perfectly eligible for use. Score is 'insulting'? Guess what, looks like Jim felt insulted, so he gave this game (which he backed and was really looking forward to) a score he felt reflected his subjective opinion.

Complaining about a score being too low reminds me of pupils complaining about getting an E or an F on a test because they expected to somehow cruise along with a passing or even decent grade after writing one or more pages of absolute shit. NO. This is not how grading standards work.
Handing out 6s and 7s to games you think are bad or mediocre is far worse of an insult, I think - an insult to customers, to people's intellect, and to basic effing numbers.

I fully respect you scoring Yooka-Laylee the way you did. In fact, I was already interested in it, and your review made me excited to play it, even if it'll probably be a while. I hope I'll like playing it as much as you seemed to.
Taking a needlessly abrasive dig at another reviewer for employing sensible and transparent scoring systems that just happen to not be in line with most other people's, however, is not cool, and in my opinion it doesn't make you look very good in this particular instance. :\

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

A "Functionally broken" game deserves nothing more than a zero. If it doesn't work that is literally the lowest you can go short of the game just being malware.
But great professionalism there, calling a reviewer (and former Escapist contributor no less) an idiot because he uses a different scale to you.

Eclipse Dragon:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

I thought you were joking.
It makes me sad that you weren't.

Apparently it was just high traffic. No confirmation of DDoS.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

I don't post on the Escapist much, if at all, anymore, but this particular post really got to me. Agree with Sterling's score or no, calling a fellow reviewer an idiot because you feel his 2/10 is unwarranted is more than a little unprofessional. I've not played Yooka Laylee, so I can't state whether Jim is 'wrong' or you are 'right', but given the fact that a review is fundamentally an opinion piece supported by one's findings, neither of you are wrong or right. I just believe you are in the wrong for stating a fellow reviewer is an idiot over this. It's not an insulting score. It's merely HIS opnion.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

I wouldn't post in here since YL doesn't interest me. However, reading this, calling someone who once contributed to the Escapist an idiot, merely because he holds a diffirent view, isn't exactly professional. And unfortunatly, this only jeopardises your believability as a reviewer/contributor to the Escapist.

From all the reviews I've read, I've come to two conclusions about Yooka-Laylee:

1: The PC version is the best one right now both on a visual and performance level.

2: There are many little problems with the game that fans of mascot platformers will likely be able to look past but will turn away most others.

It's sad to see this one not do so well, but at least most of us can agree that it isn't nearly as bad as Mighty No. 9 was. Now we just need to hope Bloodstained manages stick the landing.

2.2 Hours Playtime,gives YL a 4.5/5, and has the gall to take a swing at another reviewer?

Just throwing this out there, but Jim have Mighty Number 9 a 4/10.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make him immune to critique. 2/10 seems a rad harsh to me. I don't personally believe that YL is worse than MN9, though I have yet to play it. Jim is certainly allowed to not like the game, but criticizing it for being a fairly faithful Banjo clone (warts and all) when that is pretty much exactly what it was designed to be is a bit off the mark in my opinion.

Now as I said, Jim is free to rate a game any score he wants, but people are free to disagree with his scores as well. I personally just feel 2/10 is harsh. In my opinion that is basically saying "This game has absolutely no redeeming qualities beyond the fact that it is playable."

Samtemdo8:
To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

I always thought of it as
5 - Play it
4 - Good for people who are into this sort of thing
3 - It's okay
2 - Don't play it
1 - Literally cancer

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

Nice professionalism. Calling another reviewer you disagree with an idiot. I'd expect that sort of thing from the common rabble of the internet, but not someone who does this on a website that's supposed to be professional.

Randomosity:
Just throwing this out there, but Jim have Mighty Number 9 a 4/10.

From what I've heard Jim paid someone else to review of MN9 Because he hated playing through it so much. so that explains some inconsistencies with the score

O.o what is with Sterling lately? His reviews seem all over the place. Also, damn but he has some rabid fans, sweet christ guys, you're making the Zelda guys who allegedly DDOSed look like moderates.

Steven Bogos:
IMO, he is an idiot.

Ah, so not reviewing like you do makes him 'an idiot' hm?

Classy.

Makes me wonder whether you've even read his review. It seems professionalism left The Escapist when Jim Sterling struck out on his own.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

That's really sensitive stance there mate. I mean, I get it. It annoys me when I see good entertainment attracting bile from others, but I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't notice that I do the same.

I just look at it as a challenge now.

Samtemdo8:

Pyrian:

Steven Bogos:
A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken.

Really? A functionally broken game is worth more than 1?

It amuses me to contrast the two reviews. They both state outright that the game is almost exactly like Banjo Kazooie. The disagreement seems to be mostly about whether or not that's a GOOD thing.

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

That logic makes literally no sense. 1-10 is literally the same. But there's more inbetween for non-binary ratings.

In every logical way. 1-5 is less accurate than 1-10, which is less accurate than 1-100, and so on.

But none of that is even accurate to begin with. If someone feels that their opinion can be distilled down into a singular number. Then it's not really an opinion worth listening to.

There are so many aspects of a game worth evaluating. People probably want to read/watch the damn content.

Never a fan of the Banjo Kazooie style, seems to be a very odd spread of reviews from "its just what you want" to "this is all the wrong things from an era of awkward game creation that they refused to evolve and sucks for it".

CaptainMarvelous:
O.o what is with Sterling lately? His reviews seem all over the place. Also, damn but he has some rabid fans, sweet christ guys, you're making the Zelda guys who allegedly DDOSed look like moderates.

How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?

Samtemdo8:

Pyrian:

Steven Bogos:
A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken.

Really? A functionally broken game is worth more than 1?

It amuses me to contrast the two reviews. They both state outright that the game is almost exactly like Banjo Kazooie. The disagreement seems to be mostly about whether or not that's a GOOD thing.

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

How does having a marking system with even less room for nuance make a better measurement for quality?
I can understand people hating review scores in general but this seems a little off.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

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