This game was only good for 4-5 hours, imo. Hi-fi rush was a refreshing concept that attracted attention because it stood out in a sea of similar looking titles that the mainstream has become. But they didn’t follow through on the player feedback for such a creative leap in gameplay. It really shows when they start piling on new gameplay mechanics, and combat stops being fun and becomes a mess of awkward controls and spazzy cameras and frustrating vertically-aligned jumping.
What player feedback? The game shadow dropped. I loved it start to finish, and it was so good that it got me to go back and play old DMC games. So far, I still prefer HFR to all of those.
I’m glad you liked it, but the two camps are definitely “this game is a masterpiece” and “this game combat is overbloated and feels sloppy”. Just check the negative steam reviews, they eco similar sentiments to each other
Given that it’s pushing 90 on OpenCritic, I think they got more people in the masterpiece camp. And I think it’s fair to say that it attracted attention because plenty of people found it to be a masterpiece.
Just because things are highly beloved does not mean they aren’t flawed and couldn’t use improvements. Starfield has an 83 on metacritic. Life is Strange an 85. As of right now, only 190 people are playing Hi Fi Rush on Steam. 204 are currently playing Bayonetta, for comparison. I never said the game was a trainwreck or totally unenjoyable, i said i believed it could have been even better if they paid attention to criticisms that put off the people who didn’t enjoy it.
Edit: also just looking at the percentages on the global steam achievements and most people do not even see the ending for a 9 hour game. The achievement for beating it on normal difficulty is …16%.
Player counts are a strange metric to use to try to support any sort of argument like this. Bayonetta is currently on a 70% off sale, and Hi-Fi Rush isn’t on sale at all.
i said i believed it could have been even better if they paid attention to criticisms that put off the people who didn’t enjoy it.
What would you have them do? Change large swaths of a game after it’s already been released and people really enjoyed it? Again, the game was shadow dropped. Most of these decisions were set in stone by the time anyone ever played it, and if you’re going to iterate on feedback, you do it in the sequel.
also just looking at the percentages on the global steam achievements and most people do not even see the ending for a 9 hour game. The achievement for beating it on normal difficulty is …16%.
Most games have an astonishingly low completion rate. Hi-Fi Rush separates its achievements by difficulty. I have the achievement for beating the game on hard mode (which 9.1% of people have) but not on normal. So the actual completion rate for Hi-Fi Rush is somewhere between 16.6% and 31.5%, which is very normal. Your own example of Bayonetta has an achievement for beating the game on any difficulty, and it’s only 19.7%; according to How Long to Beat, the games are a very similar length.
I think you need to better understand the sample set and context of the data you’re reading and also understand that not every game is a live service. Thankfully, not every game is a live service. With any luck, we’ll see far fewer of them, and then expectations like yours can begin to disappear.
Okay, you got me! Hi-fi Rush is a masterpiece of perfection, the others that upvoted my OP are definitely wrong too, and any criticism ever considered by a player is just incorrect, because a lot of people loved it, and things a lot of people love are always perfect.
You claimed it got attention for reasons other than being a game many people just plain enjoyed despite critical evidence to the contrary, you strangely expected them to go back and change non-trivial things in a non-live-service game that had no beta tests or public demos, backed up your opinion with numbers that completely ignored real world context and did not support your points, and then somehow took that to mean that criticism isn’t allowed?
This game was only good for 4-5 hours, imo. Hi-fi rush was a refreshing concept that attracted attention because it stood out in a sea of similar looking titles that the mainstream has become. But they didn’t follow through on the player feedback for such a creative leap in gameplay. It really shows when they start piling on new gameplay mechanics, and combat stops being fun and becomes a mess of awkward controls and spazzy cameras and frustrating vertically-aligned jumping.
What player feedback? The game shadow dropped. I loved it start to finish, and it was so good that it got me to go back and play old DMC games. So far, I still prefer HFR to all of those.
I’m glad you liked it, but the two camps are definitely “this game is a masterpiece” and “this game combat is overbloated and feels sloppy”. Just check the negative steam reviews, they eco similar sentiments to each other
Given that it’s pushing 90 on OpenCritic, I think they got more people in the masterpiece camp. And I think it’s fair to say that it attracted attention because plenty of people found it to be a masterpiece.
Just because things are highly beloved does not mean they aren’t flawed and couldn’t use improvements. Starfield has an 83 on metacritic. Life is Strange an 85. As of right now, only 190 people are playing Hi Fi Rush on Steam. 204 are currently playing Bayonetta, for comparison. I never said the game was a trainwreck or totally unenjoyable, i said i believed it could have been even better if they paid attention to criticisms that put off the people who didn’t enjoy it.
Edit: also just looking at the percentages on the global steam achievements and most people do not even see the ending for a 9 hour game. The achievement for beating it on normal difficulty is …16%.
Player counts are a strange metric to use to try to support any sort of argument like this. Bayonetta is currently on a 70% off sale, and Hi-Fi Rush isn’t on sale at all.
What would you have them do? Change large swaths of a game after it’s already been released and people really enjoyed it? Again, the game was shadow dropped. Most of these decisions were set in stone by the time anyone ever played it, and if you’re going to iterate on feedback, you do it in the sequel.
Most games have an astonishingly low completion rate. Hi-Fi Rush separates its achievements by difficulty. I have the achievement for beating the game on hard mode (which 9.1% of people have) but not on normal. So the actual completion rate for Hi-Fi Rush is somewhere between 16.6% and 31.5%, which is very normal. Your own example of Bayonetta has an achievement for beating the game on any difficulty, and it’s only 19.7%; according to How Long to Beat, the games are a very similar length.
I think you need to better understand the sample set and context of the data you’re reading and also understand that not every game is a live service. Thankfully, not every game is a live service. With any luck, we’ll see far fewer of them, and then expectations like yours can begin to disappear.
Okay, you got me! Hi-fi Rush is a masterpiece of perfection, the others that upvoted my OP are definitely wrong too, and any criticism ever considered by a player is just incorrect, because a lot of people loved it, and things a lot of people love are always perfect.
So sorry for the confusion! Have a good weekend!
You claimed it got attention for reasons other than being a game many people just plain enjoyed despite critical evidence to the contrary, you strangely expected them to go back and change non-trivial things in a non-live-service game that had no beta tests or public demos, backed up your opinion with numbers that completely ignored real world context and did not support your points, and then somehow took that to mean that criticism isn’t allowed?