Every time a difficult game is released, the argument resurfaces whether game reviewers need to demonstrate a baseline level of competence before their article is considered “valid”. The argument for this is that competency in a game demonstrates understanding, and understanding is a requirement for conveying knowledge. However, I don’t think things are so simple. Games can catch someone’s eye for a variety of reasons, so it’s important to include the different experiences for someone with preexisting competency and someone without it. This gap between the expert-level breakdown and the novice experience might be widest for action games made by Platinum, The Wonderful 101 being the prime example.
Even before players get their hands on the basics of combat, they’ll notice that they’re being rated after every encounter based on the completion time, combo level, and damage taken. This is a useful feature for expert players, who want to get the highest rank they can on the mission overall. However, for new players, seeing "consolation prize" or bronze ranks after every fight is incredibly demoralizing, and they have no way of knowing that these evaluations are even biased against them. Like most Platinum games, important moves are relegated to the shop, but players have no way of knowing how useful these skills will actually be unless they’ve played comparable action games, or have encountered enemies that are already balanced around their use. Even moreso, the utility of some of these moves goes almost entirely unexplained, with the most famous example being the game’s block ability, Unite Guts. The description is as follows: “A Unite Morph materialized from a soul. Time with an incoming attack to bounce the attack back”. The way this is phrased suggests that it functions as a parry, but this is untrue. Not only are some attacks unblockable, but the timing doesn’t matter, and what differentiates blockable attacks from unblockable ones is that they’re “blunt” instead of “stabbing”. Nowhere is this explained, and the information passes mostly through word-of-mouth by the experts, who insist that this didn’t need in-game explanation because the blob of jello the team forms would offer no resistance to a blade. While this defense immediately falls apart when you consider how much resistance jello affords to a “blunt” hammer, the question to be asked is why this isn’t just explained in the game. Depth is created by complex decision making, not coyness about the functionality of core mechanics, and this is a problem that extends to many of the game's core systems and skills. Forcing players to take hits they don’t understand, and be criticized with poor rankings, just creates a hostile mood which isn’t conducive to the excitement these games live or die on.
The whole “turning into jello” thing may have thrown some people for a loop, so to back up, The Wonderful 101’s combat doesn’t have you control one character, but the titular hundred-and-one at the same time. You form a crowd of little heroes, who unite up into different weapons with their own specialties. This is accomplished by drawing shapes with the right analog stick, like a circle for a fist, a line for a blade, and so on. It’s a system that works pretty well, but the fact that you may have anticipated that clause reveals the problem. When it comes to recognizing drawn shapes, the question isn’t “if” the system will ever mess up, it’s “how often”. And truly, it works 95% of the time, but that means that one in twenty attempted morphs will fail. Guns are mistaken as whips, gliders as fists, bombs as hammers, and while novel mechanics do deserve some leeway, one must remember that this is an action game that will gleefully make fun of you for any mistake with a low rank. Not only that, but after an unintended morph, your morphing energy depletes anyway, leaving you in a worse state than you were before. However, this is another criticism that expert players will dismantle by saying they’ve played enough to where it works 99% of the time, and that drawing skills are part of the game. They can also point out how having to draw quickly and use energy efficiently is a valid mechanic, to which I at least partly agree. The reason I don’t like it is because of how nebulous of a skill this is, only developing as a result of errors new players had no way of anticipating. It’s a fun system when you already understand it, but again, making mechanics hard for new players to even experiment with is not equivalent to depth, and The Wonderful 101’s combat will behave more as a finicky barrier to entry rather than the exciting possibility space it should be.
This is the point where fans would point out that the director himself considers the first playthrough to function as a tutorial, and that he anticipated people would initially find the controls finicky and the skills opaque, but this is exactly my point. Is The Wonderful 101 actually that much more complex than other action games? Is the drawing system really as reliable as it could be? Would it be impossible to explain the basics of its mechanics on the first playthrough? The answer to all questions is “no”, so I have to question why this excuse is considered so bulletproof among action fans. I myself agree that one of the major joys of action games is in the discovery, but there’s a difference between giving players a comprehensive overview of the fundamentals while letting them discover the possibilities on their own, and simply failing to explain the basics and criticizing players for not knowing them already.
To wrap up this review, which is possibly the rantiest I’ve ever posted, I would like to note a couple things. Firstly, that I don’t intend to give the impression that this game is just terrible. There’s a reason why it has such a cult following, the people who really understand it can have a great time. It’s also not that anyone who isn’t an action game fan shouldn’t play this, but they will probably feel like they’re being repeatedly slapped in the face for trying to do so. It's to the point where even games analysts who praise the game's perfection and the importance of discovery will, somewhat hypocritically, post hour-long tutorials on how new players could even begin to enjoy themselves. As for myself, I had barely played any action games before my first try at The Wonderful 101, and quit about 70% of the way through for exactly this reason. By the time I went back and completed the HD version on PC, I had beaten the following action games:
Devil May Cry 1/2/3/4/5, Bayonetta 1/2, God Hand, Metal Gear Rising, P.N. 03, Nier Automata, Killer is Dead, Nioh, Viewtiful Joe, Vanquish, and Sekiro
… and even then, with more action game experience than 95% of players would ever have, The Wonderful 101 still felt insultingly obtuse at times. We, as the people who enjoy action games, shouldn’t just accept this sort of mediocrity because it’s the kind that resonates with us. Saying that the first sixteen-hour-long playthrough is supposed to be a frustrating tutorial, and that people should just git gud, kills interest in the genre and hurts everyone. And if The Wonderful 101 is trying to teach us anything, it’s that we’re stronger when we work together.
Even before players get their hands on the basics of combat, they’ll notice that they’re being rated after every encounter based on the completion time, combo level, and damage taken. This is a useful feature for expert players, who want to get the highest rank they can on the mission overall. However, for new players, seeing "consolation prize" or bronze ranks after every fight is incredibly demoralizing, and they have no way of knowing that these evaluations are even biased against them. Like most Platinum games, important moves are relegated to the shop, but players have no way of knowing how useful these skills will actually be unless they’ve played comparable action games, or have encountered enemies that are already balanced around their use. Even moreso, the utility of some of these moves goes almost entirely unexplained, with the most famous example being the game’s block ability, Unite Guts. The description is as follows: “A Unite Morph materialized from a soul. Time with an incoming attack to bounce the attack back”. The way this is phrased suggests that it functions as a parry, but this is untrue. Not only are some attacks unblockable, but the timing doesn’t matter, and what differentiates blockable attacks from unblockable ones is that they’re “blunt” instead of “stabbing”. Nowhere is this explained, and the information passes mostly through word-of-mouth by the experts, who insist that this didn’t need in-game explanation because the blob of jello the team forms would offer no resistance to a blade. While this defense immediately falls apart when you consider how much resistance jello affords to a “blunt” hammer, the question to be asked is why this isn’t just explained in the game. Depth is created by complex decision making, not coyness about the functionality of core mechanics, and this is a problem that extends to many of the game's core systems and skills. Forcing players to take hits they don’t understand, and be criticized with poor rankings, just creates a hostile mood which isn’t conducive to the excitement these games live or die on.
The whole “turning into jello” thing may have thrown some people for a loop, so to back up, The Wonderful 101’s combat doesn’t have you control one character, but the titular hundred-and-one at the same time. You form a crowd of little heroes, who unite up into different weapons with their own specialties. This is accomplished by drawing shapes with the right analog stick, like a circle for a fist, a line for a blade, and so on. It’s a system that works pretty well, but the fact that you may have anticipated that clause reveals the problem. When it comes to recognizing drawn shapes, the question isn’t “if” the system will ever mess up, it’s “how often”. And truly, it works 95% of the time, but that means that one in twenty attempted morphs will fail. Guns are mistaken as whips, gliders as fists, bombs as hammers, and while novel mechanics do deserve some leeway, one must remember that this is an action game that will gleefully make fun of you for any mistake with a low rank. Not only that, but after an unintended morph, your morphing energy depletes anyway, leaving you in a worse state than you were before. However, this is another criticism that expert players will dismantle by saying they’ve played enough to where it works 99% of the time, and that drawing skills are part of the game. They can also point out how having to draw quickly and use energy efficiently is a valid mechanic, to which I at least partly agree. The reason I don’t like it is because of how nebulous of a skill this is, only developing as a result of errors new players had no way of anticipating. It’s a fun system when you already understand it, but again, making mechanics hard for new players to even experiment with is not equivalent to depth, and The Wonderful 101’s combat will behave more as a finicky barrier to entry rather than the exciting possibility space it should be.
This is the point where fans would point out that the director himself considers the first playthrough to function as a tutorial, and that he anticipated people would initially find the controls finicky and the skills opaque, but this is exactly my point. Is The Wonderful 101 actually that much more complex than other action games? Is the drawing system really as reliable as it could be? Would it be impossible to explain the basics of its mechanics on the first playthrough? The answer to all questions is “no”, so I have to question why this excuse is considered so bulletproof among action fans. I myself agree that one of the major joys of action games is in the discovery, but there’s a difference between giving players a comprehensive overview of the fundamentals while letting them discover the possibilities on their own, and simply failing to explain the basics and criticizing players for not knowing them already.
To wrap up this review, which is possibly the rantiest I’ve ever posted, I would like to note a couple things. Firstly, that I don’t intend to give the impression that this game is just terrible. There’s a reason why it has such a cult following, the people who really understand it can have a great time. It’s also not that anyone who isn’t an action game fan shouldn’t play this, but they will probably feel like they’re being repeatedly slapped in the face for trying to do so. It's to the point where even games analysts who praise the game's perfection and the importance of discovery will, somewhat hypocritically, post hour-long tutorials on how new players could even begin to enjoy themselves. As for myself, I had barely played any action games before my first try at The Wonderful 101, and quit about 70% of the way through for exactly this reason. By the time I went back and completed the HD version on PC, I had beaten the following action games:
Devil May Cry 1/2/3/4/5, Bayonetta 1/2, God Hand, Metal Gear Rising, P.N. 03, Nier Automata, Killer is Dead, Nioh, Viewtiful Joe, Vanquish, and Sekiro
… and even then, with more action game experience than 95% of players would ever have, The Wonderful 101 still felt insultingly obtuse at times. We, as the people who enjoy action games, shouldn’t just accept this sort of mediocrity because it’s the kind that resonates with us. Saying that the first sixteen-hour-long playthrough is supposed to be a frustrating tutorial, and that people should just git gud, kills interest in the genre and hurts everyone. And if The Wonderful 101 is trying to teach us anything, it’s that we’re stronger when we work together.
7 Comments
I can absolutely understand being frustrated with breaking into the game as it is both needlessly obtuse, but also completely throws you to the sharks. I wish it was better at easing people in and explaining the systems in place, hell I feel like the whole damn genre needs to do that honestly.
I usually like reading your thoughts, even if I don't agree, but I genuinely don't understand this review. I tried to just carry on but it's been living in my head rent free for weeks so here it goes:
The initial learning curve, whether it be bumpy or smooth, is such a small part of your overall experience with an action game that I don't think it warrants much emphasis, even as someone who had to play this game twice before I "got" it. They're like fighting games in that there simply isn't an easy way to break them down to a newbie without creating a detrimental experience for veterans, but a lot of the language becomes second hand the more of them you experience so it stops mattering as much. I think this is sort of true of every genre, but action and fighting games were the genres where I noticed the most difference the more knowledge I built up.
Anyway, my point is that if the game is any good, the many, many playthroughs after that first one will define it's legacy in your mind. This review... isn't about that. There's not much talk about the game's unique sense of ebb and flow. How the dynamics of the whole production change once you understand everything. The gradual, multiplaythrough long learning curve that comes with each enemy where you keep finding new and interesting ways to tear them apart because the developers overthought every interaction etc.
Honestly, it feels more like a review of the conversation around Wonderful 101 than the game itself which I can't really advocate for. Ideally a game is going to be in your rotation long after the relevant discourse is over.
Another point I want to address is that...I just don't think most people are going to take low ranks that personally on an initial playthrough. Or at least, I didn't. TW101 is even a little more encouraging than other Platinum games in this regard since "Bronze" sounds a lot nicer than a stone award or a D rank.
Trying to get new players into a genre is an admirable goal, but I think focusing too much on that advocates for streamlined gameplay experiences even if that's not the intent. There has to be a point where you're aware you're still a niche genre and most people want less involved gaming experiences. The idea that ranking systems are discouraging and needed to be rethought lead to the ranking systems being basically worthless in later Platinum and Sonic games. Taking a system designed to motivate players already inclined to replay the games and making it a backpat for the people who are only going to play it once is counterintuitive and only decays the genre for dedicated fans.
There are all sorts of concessions being made like this in Platinum's newer games, which is why I've lost interest in them as an action game developer. There's not much of a point in bringing in new players if they and I aren't even playing for the same reasons. TW101, to me, represents their last truly great action game because of it's uncompromising nature. It was designed to raise the genre's complexity for more dedicated fans and not to bring in new ones, but I think that's okay and that there's room for more games like that in every genre. Bringing in new players has an obvious financial incentive that often corrupts and erodes things, but properly hooking long time players comes with a purity and enthusiasm that can't be beat.
The initial learning curve, whether it be bumpy or smooth, is such a small part of your overall experience with an action game that I don't think it warrants much emphasis, even as someone who had to play this game twice before I "got" it. They're like fighting games in that there simply isn't an easy way to break them down to a newbie without creating a detrimental experience for veterans, but a lot of the language becomes second hand the more of them you experience so it stops mattering as much. I think this is sort of true of every genre, but action and fighting games were the genres where I noticed the most difference the more knowledge I built up.
Anyway, my point is that if the game is any good, the many, many playthroughs after that first one will define it's legacy in your mind. This review... isn't about that. There's not much talk about the game's unique sense of ebb and flow. How the dynamics of the whole production change once you understand everything. The gradual, multiplaythrough long learning curve that comes with each enemy where you keep finding new and interesting ways to tear them apart because the developers overthought every interaction etc.
Honestly, it feels more like a review of the conversation around Wonderful 101 than the game itself which I can't really advocate for. Ideally a game is going to be in your rotation long after the relevant discourse is over.
Another point I want to address is that...I just don't think most people are going to take low ranks that personally on an initial playthrough. Or at least, I didn't. TW101 is even a little more encouraging than other Platinum games in this regard since "Bronze" sounds a lot nicer than a stone award or a D rank.
Trying to get new players into a genre is an admirable goal, but I think focusing too much on that advocates for streamlined gameplay experiences even if that's not the intent. There has to be a point where you're aware you're still a niche genre and most people want less involved gaming experiences. The idea that ranking systems are discouraging and needed to be rethought lead to the ranking systems being basically worthless in later Platinum and Sonic games. Taking a system designed to motivate players already inclined to replay the games and making it a backpat for the people who are only going to play it once is counterintuitive and only decays the genre for dedicated fans.
There are all sorts of concessions being made like this in Platinum's newer games, which is why I've lost interest in them as an action game developer. There's not much of a point in bringing in new players if they and I aren't even playing for the same reasons. TW101, to me, represents their last truly great action game because of it's uncompromising nature. It was designed to raise the genre's complexity for more dedicated fans and not to bring in new ones, but I think that's okay and that there's room for more games like that in every genre. Bringing in new players has an obvious financial incentive that often corrupts and erodes things, but properly hooking long time players comes with a purity and enthusiasm that can't be beat.
Firstly, I apologize for being a bother in that way! I'm a heavy critic of Platinum Games and don't really enjoy any of their titles, so most opinions can be safely disregarded as the salt of someone who snapped after getting one too many stone ranks in Bayonetta.
That said, the "(the first playthrough) is such a small part of your overall experience with an action game that I don't think it warrants much emphasis" is a line of thinking I completely disagree with. My thought is that if someone doesn't like the first playthrough, why go for a second? I feel like for some of these Platinum-made action games, you have to like the game before you even begin, you have to decide that you want to play it multiple times even before hitting start. What is the game doing to incentivize you to keep playing in that way if you aren't having fun? The reason I can't talk about how amazing the subsequent playthroughs are is because... I didn't play it through again. I'm not sure I ever will, since I quit on my first attempt and didn't have much fun when going back for this recent completion, even after building up my knowledge with tons of other action games. There might be more moves to unlock and remixed enemies, but the potential for newness has only decreased after reaching the end of the initial campaign, not increased. If I didn't have fun with the mechanics the first time, the only reason I have to go back is by putting my trust in the game and summoning up the intrinsic motivation to keep going. For action game fans, this is a given, but the vast majority of people won't do this. It looks like for both Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101, the completion rate hovers at about 14%, and finishing a second playthrough is at ~2%. Some games can be better at retention than others, with DMC5's completion somewhere around 40% (hard to tell, since you don't get the Human completion achievement when completing Devil Hunter), 9% go on to do another playthrough on Son of Sparda, and 5% of players do two more playthroughs to beat Dante Must Die.
It's not that I think action games should all be simplified and made easy for everyone, since I agree that it would ultimately make them appeal to nobody, but there is clearly a happy medium to strike. DMC5 still has a ranking system, it's still hard to get to S on higher difficulties, but it doesn't brow beat you for messing up, and it doesn't stop you in your tracks to do so after every fight. The whole thing has a general layer of polish and encouraging presentation that gives new players the enthusiasm to keep playing over and over again, and I could see it turning a lot of people into new genre fans. Saying that a game can either appeal to newcomers in one playthrough or hardcores with several is a false dichotomy, it can do both, and saying the game succeeds because it holds up one half of the equation seems short sighted to me. Games can be designed to where the first playthrough is fun, and there's complexity to keep digging into on the second and third. Wonderful 101 could be more friendly to newcomers on its first playthrough, Nier Automata could have a lot more nuance without negatively impacting first-time players, there's room for both approaches to grow. It's certainly difficult, there's a reason we don't get a Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition every year, but I know it can be done.
That said, the "(the first playthrough) is such a small part of your overall experience with an action game that I don't think it warrants much emphasis" is a line of thinking I completely disagree with. My thought is that if someone doesn't like the first playthrough, why go for a second? I feel like for some of these Platinum-made action games, you have to like the game before you even begin, you have to decide that you want to play it multiple times even before hitting start. What is the game doing to incentivize you to keep playing in that way if you aren't having fun? The reason I can't talk about how amazing the subsequent playthroughs are is because... I didn't play it through again. I'm not sure I ever will, since I quit on my first attempt and didn't have much fun when going back for this recent completion, even after building up my knowledge with tons of other action games. There might be more moves to unlock and remixed enemies, but the potential for newness has only decreased after reaching the end of the initial campaign, not increased. If I didn't have fun with the mechanics the first time, the only reason I have to go back is by putting my trust in the game and summoning up the intrinsic motivation to keep going. For action game fans, this is a given, but the vast majority of people won't do this. It looks like for both Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101, the completion rate hovers at about 14%, and finishing a second playthrough is at ~2%. Some games can be better at retention than others, with DMC5's completion somewhere around 40% (hard to tell, since you don't get the Human completion achievement when completing Devil Hunter), 9% go on to do another playthrough on Son of Sparda, and 5% of players do two more playthroughs to beat Dante Must Die.
It's not that I think action games should all be simplified and made easy for everyone, since I agree that it would ultimately make them appeal to nobody, but there is clearly a happy medium to strike. DMC5 still has a ranking system, it's still hard to get to S on higher difficulties, but it doesn't brow beat you for messing up, and it doesn't stop you in your tracks to do so after every fight. The whole thing has a general layer of polish and encouraging presentation that gives new players the enthusiasm to keep playing over and over again, and I could see it turning a lot of people into new genre fans. Saying that a game can either appeal to newcomers in one playthrough or hardcores with several is a false dichotomy, it can do both, and saying the game succeeds because it holds up one half of the equation seems short sighted to me. Games can be designed to where the first playthrough is fun, and there's complexity to keep digging into on the second and third. Wonderful 101 could be more friendly to newcomers on its first playthrough, Nier Automata could have a lot more nuance without negatively impacting first-time players, there's room for both approaches to grow. It's certainly difficult, there's a reason we don't get a Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition every year, but I know it can be done.
I didn't know about those completion statistics. I didn't expect the disparity between DMC and Platinum's own titles to be so large. That's...eye opening. lol. I always preferred DMC because of the depth but I didn't think it would be more popular than Bayonetta with both camps.
I'll admit to being a little more defensive of this game than most, because so many new action games trended toward dumbing the action aspect down or embracing RPG mechanics that I'm glad to have anything that doesn't approach the genre with that mindset. If action games that seem purely designed for newcomers can be lavished with praise and sales I feel the need to validate games that lean the other way, if only so developers can see that it's okay to make more games like that.
But yeah, we can do both. You're absolutely right about that. Apologies for the essay and thank you for taking the time to respond.
I'll admit to being a little more defensive of this game than most, because so many new action games trended toward dumbing the action aspect down or embracing RPG mechanics that I'm glad to have anything that doesn't approach the genre with that mindset. If action games that seem purely designed for newcomers can be lavished with praise and sales I feel the need to validate games that lean the other way, if only so developers can see that it's okay to make more games like that.
But yeah, we can do both. You're absolutely right about that. Apologies for the essay and thank you for taking the time to respond.
Could not agree with this more
disagree with how the wonder-liner is characterized here. the wonder-liner changes its color before you press the morph button to indicate which weapon you’ll get. in that sense, saying players have “no way of aniticipating” errors isn’t accurate. generally as a mechanic, it’s not a question of it “working” or not; this would imply that performing the same exact motion can have varying results, which is simply incorrect. the thresholds at which the wonder-liner is interpreted as [x] morph are consistent.
Removed by a moderator
Removed by a moderator
DELETED
3 years ago