and it's not good, which IMO is disappointing considering when I first heard of the concept it sounded like it had so much potential.
http://gamestyle.com/articles/1867/naughty-bear/
and no, I haven't heard of that site.
Naughty Bear
Game » consists of 8 releases. Released Jun 29, 2010
Naughty Bear is a third-person action game about a psychotic teddy bear that preys on the innocent inhabitants of an island because he was not invited to a birthday party.
first review on metacritic
Not really surprised. It looked sort of bland. And the little trailers they put out where funny at first but got...old.
I had a feeling this game would be one of those that is awesome in concept but lacks in execution. Unfortunately, it looks like I might be right.
Can't say I'm fully surprised. The trailers didn't impress me all that much, so I don't have very high expectations for the game itself.
" @CL60 said:Matt Hazard further proves your point." @ryanwho said:Howard the Duck? "" Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "Conkers Bad Fur Day? "
But yeah, as I've been saying for while, this game looks just awful.
People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad.
" Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "You're right. Grand Theft Auto IV was terrible
" People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad. "Yeah but at school you're taught that a 70/100 is average, so 7/10=average now a days.
" @FilthyJTR said:Yeah, American outlets score much in the manner that they learned in school, where a 7/10 is average, an 8 is quite good, a 9 is very good, and a 10 is excellent." People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad. "Yeah but at school you're taught that a 70/100 is average, so 7/10=average now a days. "
" Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "That's not true. There was that...ummm...game with the...thing and that other thing...and....
Damn, you're right.
" Gamestyle: Our world, your guide. Riveting. "
I didn't notice that when I went to the site. That shit doesn't make sense.
" @ryanwho said:Also, Banjo Kazooie, Nuts & Bolts. Although I guess satire wasn't as central as it is in GTA IV or Naughty Bear.." Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "You're right. Grand Theft Auto IV was terrible "
Not surprised. When I heard of it, I was just as excited as everyone one was, but slowly I realized how dumb it was: a sandbox without direction or narrative with early-PS2 graphics, and an ad campaign heavily reliant on pop-culture references. Seriously, the fans of this game surprise me: nothing about the game or the studio making it showed any promise... ever, yet they were the most die-hard fans, even comparable to franchise or console fans. I guess the cutesy design contrasting with the violence won people over easily.
I'll still pick it up, though... when it's 10 bucks. Looks like dumb fun, but nothing I would write home about.
" @FilthyJTR said:
That shit blew my mind. "" @ZanzibarBreeze said:
I didn't notice that when I went to the site. That shit doesn't make sense. "" Gamestyle: Our world, your guide. Riveting. "
This shit is blowing my mind... you all can't read. It says 'Our word, your guide'
That aside, I help in the running of Gamestyle and I'd just like to point out that we still give out 5/10 for average games - as a previous poster pointed out. In our world, 7/10 is pretty good. :)
We are a UK-based site, but if you like the look of the place, feel free to subscribe to the RSS feed or hit up the small and humble forums. For anyone looking for legitimacy of the site - we've been running for over 10 years - just check Wikipedia.
GameSpot just gave it a 5.5 (out of 10).
The Good
Good concept
Some amusingly brutal kills
The Bad
Game mechanics are rough around the edges
Basic combat lacks challenge
Shallow storytelling
Too much main game content locked off
"People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad."
Hmm, should I spend my time on the plethora of amazing games to play in this year, or buy that Naughty Bear game?
" Did anyone really expect this game to be good? "
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" Did you really expect this game to be good? "
Did you really need to post this twice?
They spent way too much time trying to make this game sound good, instead of actually making it good. Could have been cool, with gratuitous stuffing flying about, dismemberment, and interesting stealth-kills.
Instead it looks like a 5 year-old game trying desperately to be relevant by ripping off pop-culture.
Metacritic gave it a 37 (out of a hundred), and that is simply the average of critics (As opposed to an individual score).
I used to be so pumped about this game (I even had an avatar of Naughty), but after a while, I thought that this game might not be great. However, I never expected it to be THIS terrible (According to metacritic, it's currently one of the top 10 worst games for the PS3)
At least Red Dead Redemption was able to survive all the criticism that was given to it before its release (Man, I love that game)
Gamespot gave it a 5.5.
IGN gave it a 3.0 on the Xbox and 2.5 on the PS3 (which makes absolutely no sense.)
" @Jeffsekai said:" of course its going to suck. "@ryanwho said:" Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "Both of these. Also, A2M, the developers, suck. "
A2M? What kind of name is that? Makes me think of ass to mouth.
No, that's what it is meant to be, but as this article shows, the review system has been skewed to make a 7/10 average." People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad. "
Not really, but this game seems like something that would have been a budget game in previous generations. Why the hell does everything this gen have to be $60, regardless of quality anyways? While this is like $50, I expected this to be nothing more than a rental at best. I still would have been fine with throwing down $20 for it." Did anyone really expect this game to be good? "
There is no a priori reason for any given number to be the average of a given random set of numbers. It is logically possible (although, perhaps, improbable) for *ALL* games to be perfect." @FilthyJTR said:
No, that's what it is meant to be, but as this article shows, the review system has been skewed to make a 7/10 average. "" People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad. "
" @SL33TBL1ND said:True enough, but then the perfection would seem to be average and with a more mathematically correct rating system they would all be bumped down to 5, but I see what you mean.There is no a priori reason for any given number to be the average of a given random set of numbers. It is logically possible (although, perhaps, improbable) for *ALL* games to be perfect. "" @FilthyJTR said:
No, that's what it is meant to be, but as this article shows, the review system has been skewed to make a 7/10 average. "" People don't even understand scoring systems anymore. A 5/10 is average and therefore a playable game. A 4/10 or lower is bad. "
I actually went against the reviews and purchased this game anyway. WET got horrible reviews too and I really enjoyed it, so I figured "what the hell?"
I actually really enjoy the game. I think the people that were reviewing the game weren't playing it right or something. They complain about the game being repetitive, but the game is all about beating your own score so *of course* it's repetitive. I wonder if they'd also score Tetris, Audiosurf, or any racing game low for being repetitive also.
They also complain about the poor combat mechanics, but the game isn't about fighting. Killing, yes. Button mashing, no. It's like complaining about melee combat in Metal Gear Solid being poor. If you actually have to use the combat enough that it's a turnoff for you, then you're playing the game wrong.
I suggest you guys rent it before you write it off based solely on the fact that reviewers these days don't seem to remember what it's like to play games for fun without an epic storyline or an open world that you can get lost in.
@zaglis said:
" It should have been M rated. After they revealed that it was T I lost all interest and never looked back. "The game is rated T but it's still really violent. There's just no dismemberment or blood (instead they use stuffing, which I think is kind of funny). I think that if this game scored higher in reviews and sold really well it could have potentially caused a controversy. With how things turned out though, I doubt even Fox News will get wind of the game.
Wonderful! This made my day." @FluxWaveZ said:
"" @Jeffsekai said:
" of course its going to suck. "@ryanwho said:" Seriously what is the potential here. Its a "look at me, cute things being evil!" satire game. Satire games suck. "Both of these. Also, A2M, the developers, suck. "
A2M? What kind of name is that? Makes me think of ass to mouth.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment