...um...

I don't...um...

sigh

Scott Pilgrim's mediocrity can stay away from the eShop.

I... agree completely. I played it, wanted to like it... but...
No.

What's mediocre about Scott Pilgrim? Unless you just don't like Beat 'em ups and have no one to play it with. But even then, I wouldn't call it mediocre, I'd just say it's not for you. It's a great game all around. It's just, well, in a kind of Niche genre.

Scott Pilgrim wasn't very special. It had nothing going for it other than being a generic beat 'em up. The art style is awful and didn't provide an excuse to continue playing. The difficulty was also nothing short of annoying.

The multiplayer did little justice for it, either. Even if it was online with some sort of free DLC, this game would still be drab. Hopefully no one has to waste their money on it ever again. (It's a funny note knowing I got it for free off PSN. lol)

The art style is from the comic. I know everyone's tastes are different, but it's not like they had a choice.

You still haven't explained how it's average. I'd like you to go in-depth, please. And it's only difficult if you play alone. It's a piece of cake with friends.

if you played a retro styled beat-em-up by yourself, you're doing it wrong by default

Truth. Scott Pilgrim rocked. But only if you played with friends and maxed out your character.

Enemy variety wasn't very special and the combat got old fast. It felt like I was mashing one button since that was the only effective way to progress. The environments were also unappealing. Teenage Mutant Turtles IV had better environments than this let alone the bosses, which were dreadful in Scott Pilgrim.

The multiplayer isn't fun when the game isn't fun. It has no charm nor provides any reason to continue. The storyline isn't very appealing even though most beat 'em ups lack that certain aspect on purpose. But if it had a good storyline, maybe I would've pulled through the game and avoided the repetitive combat, dull environments, so-so music, forgettable bosses and everything else that makes this game less.

ok, now I know you're lying since the only thing I know about the game beyond one level I saw on youtube is that the soundtrack is AWESOME.

Obviously we have different opinions.

Wait a second, we arent talking about streets of rage?

@CactusJackson

I don't agree with a single word you just said, but experience has taught me that that is when it is best to agree to disagree. I will say this though: Beat 'em ups are very repetitive by nature. That's why they're always, always, ALWAYS better with friends. There's only one or two exceptions out there from what I've played, and I've played quite a few. I didn't like Scott Pilgrim at first either, nor did I like Streets of Rage, Final Fight, or River City Ransom. Then I played them with other people. Now I enjoy them all, especially Scott Pilgrim.

You're off my favorite users list!

Well, regarding Scott Pilgrim, I played it with my friend. At first we were both having a blast, but slowly all the charm from the sprites and music started to wear off.

Now, I'm not a big beat'em up guy, and we didn't get to play the through the whole game, but I personally enjoyed it a lot less than other games of the genre I've played. But something about how the game itself played made us both walk away (even though he has a huge affinity for SP) feeling at least a little disappointed.

I'd pick it up if came to the Wii U, if only to attempt it again...

If it was a good game to me, I'd have no problem playing it by myself. TMNT IV, Castle Crashers, Streets of Rage, Final Fight, you name it, I thoroughly enjoyed them. Hell, I even enjoyed Midway's Narc more than Pilgrim even though you use guns. Still plays like a beat 'em up, all in all.

But, but, but! I still luh you.

As someone who loves side scrolling beat-em-ups (my user name and avatar should be a clue), I can't say I'm a huge fan of Scott Pilgrim. It does look nice graphically, but the problem is the repetivity of the unnecessarily long stages. I played it in multiplayer and the first stage alone took us ages to complete. It felt like an hour but, I'm guessing, it probably took more around 20 minutes in reality. Either way, it felt like a long time.

There's not much fun in defeating the enemies either. It's just a case of punching and kicking them until they fall down. In Streets of Rage and Final Fight you can grab your opponents to do greater damage then throw them into other enemies / slam them into the ground. Scott Pilgrim is just punch a bunch of guys and then move on slightly on a never ending stage.

I'd say the game would be good (as it looks nice visually) if they drastically shortened the stages and allowed you to defeat the enemies faster. It's too long and too slow. Side scrollers should be beatable in a single sitting with about an hour of TOTAL play time. Any more is just too long. I don't fancy going through stage 1 of that game again, never mind the full thing. It's a shame as the look of it is great.

What? You can grab enemies in Scott Pilgrim, too. And it makes it much faster, too. There are also tons of weapons and upgrades that make it faster, too, as well as shortcuts. Are we even playing the same game?

maybe they're just playing the new Double Dragon and just thought it was Scott Pilgrim.

Which would actually bring up more questions than answers already.

I was disappointed with the Scott Pilgrim game simply because the movie is so damn awesome, and is largely based on games, that it should have the greatest game ever! Instead it's just a retro throwback to Streets of Rage. There's just so much more they could have done with it.