Little Big Planet 2

[Velorath]

Debut trailer is up and looking really good.

IGN probably has one of the more detailed articles up out of the ones I've read so far.

[schild]

Jumping looks like it's still trash, which is a crying shame.

[Velorath]

Jumping looks like it's still trash, which is a crying shame.

From Gamespot's article:

During its presentation, Media Molecule addressed the criticism from players who felt that Sackboy was too "floaty" and sometimes difficult to control. There's a slight problem in that the team members want all levels from the first game to be playable in the second, so they are unable to change Sackboy's physical properties as it would break those creations. However, there is a way around this problem in new user-generated levels at least; you can create Sackbots with different physical properties. In theory, you could have an entire level played using a Sackbot whose physical attributes are tailored to your liking. This could mean Sackbots with greater gravitational pull to the ground, or on the other hand, the ability to jump great distances.

Far from a perfect solution, but at least it's something they're acknowledging.

[Yegolev]

I don't know, giving people who suck a handicap-bot so they can play the game sounds rather perfect to me.

I was going to dismiss this but the video sold me.  I'd love for the tools to let me make the machines I was not able to make in the first one.

[MisterNoisy]

I'm with schild - the first LBP game was broken by the poor platforming physics and the sequel doesn't seem to address this adequately, so LBP2 is a bargain bin title at best for me.  I loved the first game, but I only played it for a couple of weeks because I got tired of both the shitty floaty jumping and the dodgy movement between the three lateral planes.  Building things in LBP was fun, but actually interacting with the things you built was just shy of terrible.  They really should let the first game's levels exist solely with the first title and let the new title be designed around jumping physics that aren't shit.

That said, the game looks as aesthetically amazing as the first.

[Velorath]

There's a 4 minute long video interview here as well.

Honestly I doubt I have the creativity or the patience to ever create anything worth playing, especially with all the new shit they're adding in here, but I feel like I need to support this series anyway even if the gameplay falls short in some respects.

[Yegolev]

Once I decided it was a toolset first and a game second, I was OK with almost anything, even the Luigi-from-SMB2 jumping.  I was less annoyed with the level design and more interested in how they were constructed.

[Mrbloodworth]

Did they really need to do this? I would have been more than happy if they had fixed the still existing bugs in the first, and added all this new stuff as DLC add ons.

[Rasix]

Won't be fooled again.  Only game I feel worse about purchasing in the past 2 years is Mad World.

[Signe]

I'm glad that I bought it just when the price dropped.  I'm sad that now they'll only give me pennies when I trade it back.

[Samwise]

Luigi-from-SMB2 jumping.

Quoted for amazing insight.

[Yegolev]

Luigi was my second favorite after the obvious choice of Peach.

[Ard]

Blasphemy.  Toad was clearly superior to Luigi.  I stand by my midget peeps. 

[Teleku]

Luigi was my second favorite after the obvious choice of Peach.

Ditto, we owned the game as kids, and the only character any of us every played was Peach.  The fat stoner father of our friend next door would play Luigi as sort of a hard mode challenge, but he's the only person I ever met that didn't just use Peach.

[Elerion]

Toad was hot shit for digging levels.

For everything else, there's Peach.

[fuser]

Arrrrriiiiseee.....

LBP2 story demo will be on the PSN store today and launch for January 18th is confirmed!

Here's some more beta videos:
Sackenstein 3D
Final Fantasy remake

[fuser]

Holy crap its short. I think theres at max 8hrs played and I'm almost done (last boss multiplayer isn't cohesive). The jump physics are the same, they went really nutty with the cut scenes and there are some unskipable ones that drive me bonkers.

[Jeff Kelly]

This title made me hate reviewers all over again.

Maybe it's just me being old but when did reviewers stop focusing on the game aspect of games?

LBP2 is now the umpteenth game where reviews are along the line of: "Well the single player game isn't that great but there is so much more, like editors and multiplayer and stuff so we give it a million percent score".

If the jump and run aspect of your, well jump and run game, sucks then I don't care if your level editor is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.

LBP2 as a game is exactly the same as LBP1, with the same problems that already made me hate the first one. I don't know about professional reviewers but I tend to buy games for playing them not for their awesome level editing functions.

If you expect LBP2 to be better than the first one, then at least the single player aspect isn't. If you hated the jump and run physics of the first you won't like the second one either.

[Velorath]

This title made me hate reviewers all over again.

Maybe it's just me being old but when did reviewers stop focusing on the game aspect of games?

LBP2 is now the umpteenth game where reviews are along the line of: "Well the single player game isn't that great but there is so much more, like editors and multiplayer and stuff so we give it a million percent score".

If the jump and run aspect of your, well jump and run game, sucks then I don't care if your level editor is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.

LBP2 as a game is exactly the same as LBP1, with the same problems that already made me hate the first one. I don't know about professional reviewers but I tend to buy games for playing them not for their awesome level editing functions.

If you expect LBP2 to be better than the first one, then at least the single player aspect isn't. If you hated the jump and run physics of the first you won't like the second one either.

This post made me hate people who fixate on review scores all over again.

Maybe it's just me being old, but when did readers stop focusing on the actual written review?

All kidding aside, you said right there in your post that reviewers are mentioning their issues with the single player stuff in the reviews themselves, and then mentioning what it was they liked about the game.  Your main problem seems to be that you don't think that the number at the end reflects what you think they should have given it (when at best all a review score is ever going to be is some vague numerical representation of how much that reviewer enjoyed the game anyway).  If they addressed your concerns with the game in their reviews, why do you really give a damn what the score was?

[Jeff Kelly]

I don't, that's why I didn't buy it after I had the opportunity to play it and read the reviews.

Yet it's featured in every top games list with Metascores of > 90%.

But yes I hate the rating aspect because they lump totally different aspects together which gives everybody that doesn't read the review a totally skewered view about the quality and merits of the game.

I also take issue with the mindset that discounts the Game aspect of games.

[Velorath]

I don't, that's why I didn't buy it after I had the opportunity to play it and read the reviews.

Yet it's featured in every top games list with Metascores of > 90%.

But yes I hate the rating aspect because they lump totally different aspects together which gives everybody that doesn't read the review a totally skewered view about the quality and merits of the game.

I also take issue with the mindset that discounts the Game aspect of games.

The people who buy games based of the Metascores and never bothers to actually read any of the reviews have nobody but themselves to blame.  And I can't really fault reviewers for finding value in the level creation aspects of LBP2, since that's been the selling point of the franchise.

[Tebonas]

I agree with Jeff here, you give a score for the actual game, not the potential it might have at some time in the future.

[fuser]

If the jump and run aspect of your, well jump and run game, sucks then I don't care if your level editor is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.

I understand you why should the game have a bad score because you(not just you, a few people I know hate it) feel the physics is wrong? The original game had the same jump physics that people loved or hated, its not like the designers could change it on a whim without considering the implications it had on the platforming. The game has some serious faults on its own after my playthrough where I'm reluctant to recommend it to friends. The shortness of the game really kills it for me as "hey this is suppose to be a showcase of the toolkit" but whoops even after professional development for ~2 years it's a 8hr(max) game. Granted there are some really nice sections but they went overboard on the in-game cut-scenes and less on the fun
It's just not enough content in my opinion to justify a whole new title price.

Back to your scoring issue, one game with the exact same issue is the New Supermario Brothers for the Wii. They changed the jump physics in a Mario game to something that handles worse then sackboy. This is a worse fault then the scoring of LBP2 because its a continuation of the Mario games where you expect jumps to handle a certain way.

[Hawkbit]

I was going to pick this up, but lack of single player stuff is inexcusable.  If they're relying on DLC to fill that blank, that's fucked because the game is $60 (a shitton of money for 8 hours play).  If they're relying on user made content, then they haven't played enough user-made content yet. 

I'll snag it when it's greatest hits, I guess.  Or not.

[fuser]

I'll snag it when it's greatest hits, I guess.  Or not.

On sale it would be fine but not for $60, its the same issue with FPS that are obscenely short. Already offered co-workers that own LBP1 lend of the game for them to make up their own minds, took back recommendation of buying it.

[Velorath]

I agree with Jeff here, you give a score for the actual game, not the potential it might have at some time in the future.

It's not scoring potential, it's scoring the mod tools that were the main selling point of the game.

[Hawkbit]

If that's the case, then they shouldn't have reviewed it at all.  I don't remember IGN reviews for Aurora or Havok, yet I do remember the mainstream reviewing the game created with these tools.

[Velorath]

If that's the case, then they shouldn't have reviewed it at all.  I don't remember IGN reviews for Aurora or Havok, yet I do remember the mainstream reviewing the game created with these tools.

They're reviewing a product.  Last I checked, you couldn't just walk into a store and buy the Aurora or Havok tools in a box unto themselves.  I'd have to go back and look but I'm fairly sure reviews of the Neverwinter Nights games took multiplayer and mod tools into account in their reviews rather than just reviewing the single player campaigns.  Also it doesn't sound like most of the people writing the reviews hate the single player stuff.  From what I gather the general consensus is that it's a bit short and people who didn't like the way the first game controlled won't like this one. 

All in all, it just seems like a non-issue to me.  I haven't seen any reviews yet that don't completely spell out what the reviewer likes and doesn't like about the game.  What are the alternatives you or Jeff Kelly are suggesting here?  Don't review the game at all or review the game entirely based on single player?  I don't see how no reviews or limited reviews would be somehow more helpful to the consumer.  Or maybe they should lower the review score to only reflect single player for the people who can't actually be bothered to read through the review and are only interested in playing it as a single player game?  Would you apply that logic to CoD, Halo, Blood Bowl, L4D, or any other game that has a heavy multiplayer focus?

[Mrbloodworth]

If that's the case, then they shouldn't have reviewed it at all.  I don't remember IGN reviews for Aurora or Havok, yet I do remember the mainstream reviewing the game created with these tools.

The game has propriety mod tools built as a main part of the game play and content generation. Listing the middleware used to make the product, is not comparable. As a side note, those two library do indeed get reviews, just not on game sites :) Aurora or Havok are not mod tools, and are not mod tools provided by LBP2.

[Jeff Kelly]

In an ideal world I'd say get rid of ratings at all but that's not really the issue here. I'd like to see more seperation of the different aspects in ratings and reviews. I'm focusing on single player but I know that other people just look for the multiplayer aspect in a game.

Break them further apart and review them seperately, so you'd have a section that focuses on single player, one that focuses on multiplayer and one on other aspects like level editors.

This would make easier for me to decide if the single player part is worth it but also tell other people that it might be a great game for their playstyle. Some online mags go even further and actually write seperate reviews.

To get back to the game, if you liked LBP then LBP2 is basically the same game with a much better level editor. Not my cup of tea but to each his own.

[Mrbloodworth]

Why would you not review the tools built in to the game?

That's a bit like not reviewing sim city, because it let you place things, and thus, is not part of the game play?

LBP is a shitty platformer. Its an incredible sanbox where you can make shitty platformers and share that content.

[NiX]

The GT review is pretty good at covering all aspects.