It's no secret that Nintendo has relaxed its criteria for independent publishers to release their games on their eShop, and for better or for worse it looks like that policy is here for the foreseeable future. It's this relaxed attitude that is responsible for one of the latest releases on the eShop.
Tested With Robots! is themed in a similar style to Stealth Inc. 2, wherein you must traverse challenging platforming levels in order to reach a goal. Unfortunately, that's where the similarities to Curve Studio's excellent title end. Even worse, that's also where the gameplay ends.
After you've selected the game and waited through the unreasonably long loading screen, you'll be presented with a shamefully basic menu screen where moving the control stick and pressing the A button does nothing. Eventually you'll work out that you have to use the D-Pad and the B button, which immediately sets you off on slightly unfamiliar ground.
Once you've made your way through the menus, you're presented with a black screen and some dialogue from your boss in an awfully low-resolution system font. The dialogue itself is surprisingly well written – bar a few grammatical errors – and brings to mind a similar relationship between the player and the boss that's similar to that between Chell and GLaDOS in the Portal series.
Once that's over you'll be in control of a robot that can move left and right with the D-Pad, and jump depending on how long the A or Y button is pressed, leaping once the button is released. You use this basic move-set to traverse through largely monochrome levels with almost no design to them, and this is where the game shows itself for what it is.
This is an incredibly basic game, and yet the controls – despite their simplicity – are stupendously muddy and badly designed, just like the levels themselves. The game even mocks you at one point just before you tackle a series of spike-filled pits and declares that "even a baby can do it". The fact of the matter is no, a baby cannot do it, but not because it is inherently difficult, but because the controls are so insurmountably awful. There's no visual indication of how high you're about to jump, you have to rely on your own feel for the 'mechanics', and as such judging how long you should hold the button down is more of an art than an easily repeatable procedure.
As you can no doubt see from the images and the previous statements, this isn't a looker. Worst of all is the fact that whenever the robot is moving, it inexplicably seems to suffer from JPEG compression, which in a game is completely unacceptable. Eventually you'll also come across enemies that are quite literally stick figures with no frames of animation. This is a feeling that runs throughout the entire title; it's lazy and slap-dash.
There is nothing more to the experience than what has already be stated. Occasionally more uninspired obstacles will appear, but considering the only function you have is to move and jump with little to no interaction with your surroundings, they barely change the way you play.
Conclusion
With poor controls, terrible graphics and a ludicrously long loading time, Tested With Robots! is more reminiscent of a poorly made flash game than an eShop title, and is absolutely no fun to play whatsoever. Even moderately well-written dialogue can't save it, so spend your money on something else instead.
Comments 59
Ouch. This is what happens when no one play-tests a game. Top tip for developers: have other people play your game before release (also act on what you see).
And the award for ugliest WiiU eShop game goes to.........
Man, look at the price! And look at that score!
wow
Let it rust, let it rust!
Can't hold it back anymore!
Let it rust, let it rust!
Turn away and slam the door!
=w= So sorry 4 dat!
Oh good, another RCMADIAX or Treefall Studios.
I implore other Nintendo fans to stop buying this rubbish, even if it is to laugh at it. This kind of trite runs the risk of making the entire eShop and Nintendo's once-touted indie support become a horrible laughing stock. The developer should be ashamed of this crap.
And for 10 Euros? Remembering my brief stop-over in Germany, that roughly translates to $500 US (give or take $485). This is just obscene.
Very sad - Developers - what - are - you - thinking- what - are - you - doing - to - our - beloved - eshop. . . .
That price should be divided by a hundred… no, by negative one.
Long loading times?! For that?! Wow. Really… just… wow.
This is one of the worst looking games I've ever seen. I've played DOS games from the 80s that were made entirely with ASCII characters that look better than this. Heck, I've made my share of games in the early 2000s (when I was about 13) that had really poor graphics, all drawn with MS Paint, and even they look better than this paid release.
Wha...
OK Nintendo, gotta put a few standards before allowing release.
And maybe this is proof that even though we all think we can make a good video game, it's a lot harder than it looks.
Advice for developers: Test with humans.
Nintendo, ya gotta learn about extremes and how not to constantly be in them.
Example here. Cutting developers some slack is nice, but clearly this is simply too MUCH slack...
Well this is what the fans wanted right? Here it is! Enjoy! LOL
The most insulting part of all this is the price.
How can anyone allow themselves to release something this horrific?
Things like this poison the whole Wii U eShop.
Everyone complained that Nintendo's standards for developers were too strict. So they did what everyone wanted to do, and greatly loosened them.
This is the result. Cheap, terrible games flooding the eShop and crowding out the quality. Honestly, I liked it better when every game that was released had a basic floor of quality.
How much?!
Quite possibly the most negative video game review I've ever read and if the images are anything to go by it's entirely justified.
goty obv
Yeesh, even the art style looks like something you can do in a few minutes.
@Quorthon Um, no. 10 euros would roughly translate to about $10, not $500!
As for this game, just how does this stuff get approved for the eShop?! I have made my own games that are better than this (In Petit Computer), but none of them are super great and hence I'm not trying to charge people for them. One game I made is a simple, short, yet difficult (haven't even beaten it yet!) shoot 'em up boss battle game, if that makes any sense. It didn't take a long time or much effort to give the game good controls and jumping physics, and I wasn't even taking the game very seriously while I was making it. It was more of a practice project. So why countless developers can't even take the time to put good controls and physics in ther game is beyond me. And the loading times... I don't even understand how that's possible unless you're telling the program to wait one second every time it loads a tile of level data. Petit Computer, which is far, far slower than the Wii U could load these levels in a half a second. In fact, I could probably recreate this game with non existent load times and good controls in Petit Computer...
@mystman12
That part was a joke. When I was in Germany a few years ago, it was roughly 10 Euro = $15. Out of curiosity, I looked it up, it'd be just over $12, US.
Honestly... who is the genius that thought to put a grey background behind a grey main character? >.>
This game is not just bad or lazy, the screenshots alone give the impression it was made without even checking what was on screen at least once ^_^;
@RCMADIAX
I suppose your games are also priced to take advantage of low review scores rather than being blatantly over-priced. But the bland, lifeless graphics, soulless presentation, shamelessly hollow release, and staggering over-use of a flat gray color? I honestly thought this might be another one of yours based on graphics alone.
You take pride in lackluster reviews and delivering a low-quality game "because the Nintendo owners bought a low-quality game before (the Letter) just because." That is an abuse of consumer trust, and frankly comes off as disrespectful of your audience. I would never want to release something that blatantly insults the intelligence of consumers or fans.
You took a Construct 2 tutorial, and then charged people money for it. Some of these games would barely qualify as student projects halfway through a game design course. I don't see a passion for game design or an enjoyment of gaming or a respect for gamers here. I see a cheap money grab hidden in slap-dash efforts at bare minimum "gaming."
I just don't get it. I wouldn't want to piss all over an opportunity like developing a game for a console or a company like Nintendo. A few years ago, Iwata pleaded with developers not to charge only a dollar for a game and not to devalue our industry. Apple has spent a (gaming) generation teaching consumers that video games are either free or $1 throwaway crap with as much value to a person as a Snickers bar.
When the marketplace is flooded with crap, it collapses. The mobile bubble is bursting, if it hasn't already--crushed beneath the weight of too many games and far too many half-assed efforts to get rich quick. The 2nd generation was killed by swamps of releases, unfettered by quality or regulation. Now Nintendo's reduction of hurdles is being treated the same way. Every time a title like this appears, it further tarnishes the image of the eShop, and the reputation of the already-struggling Wii U itself. Ultimately, these soulless, careless, half-hearted efforts will lower consumer confidence in the service and everyone suffers for that. Gamers lose out on potentially great gaming experiences, and developers who give a damn get ignored among a sea of mediocrity.
At least you aren't charging a relative fortune for no-brow gaming, but the downside there is it teaches the lesson that crap sells if you price it right.
The Nintendo fans sticking by this ailing console deserve better.
Phil Fish may have been an ass, but at least he clearly cared about his game, gaming, and delivering something meaningful.
This is the worst looking game I've ever seen.
@BinaryFragger
It pleases me to see someone else reference Purina making video games.
@RCMADIAX @Quorthon
@BensonUii
Ha, I think I said my piece.
@Captain_Toad Meme Run!
£9? Uhm, no.
So; "Tested With Robots" sums it up then.
It's sad because I honestly think all of my games are better than this, presuming the review is entirely accurate and fair, and I'm giving them all away completely free because I basically can't make any money off them
If you want you can give any of them a go (shameless plug); all completely free to download, micro-transaction free and Ad free too:
iNCEPTIONAL's games on the Google Play Store (Android): https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=iNCEPTIONAL
iNCEPTIONAL's games on the iOS App Store (Apple): https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/kirk-johnston/id908692477
I actually wish I could make games for the likes of the Wii U eShop but alas I'm not a good enough programmer to even figure out how to get my games on Nintendo systems. I'm also too poor to be able to afford the developer costs anyway and ideally I'd rather get a proper programmer and artist to work on them so I could make games that are a little more "sophisticated" than your average mobile game shall we say and truer to what I think proper console games should be like.
Ah, the trials and tribulations of real life...
Everyone keeps saying how Nintendo needs to stop allowing these kinds of games in the eShop, but that's not true. Microsoft did it best: Just put them all in a separate "indie games" section. That way you know you're going to be wading through some junk when you enter, and the titles won't clog up the rest of the eShop and make it look bad.
Why has Nintendo not done this yet? If they don't soon we're going to have a serious problem.
@DerpSandwich
I don't think that's fair on those indies that actually make good games and there's quite a few of them. Personally, I'd rather Nintendo just exercised some quality standards again. That good old 'Nintendo Seal of Quality' is still a worthwhile ideal imo. Sure; it might mean Nintendo misses out on the odd surprise mega-hit, like Flappy Bird, but those are really few and far between and you really shouldn't flood your store with total crap in the hope that one of these titles is the next big thing among the new age social media masses. I don't think that's how you create truly loving and loyal long term fans and customers.
@Kirk I don't think its necessarily unfair to anyone. The XBLN indie section has a ton of great games, and when you sort by rating you can see the best titles first, then dig deeper if you want to find something else. Some of those indies have sold tons of copies.
@DerpSandwich
Yeah, that's true.
The main issue I have is when genuinely great indie games are viewed by the general masses as somehow lesser quality than the huge AAA titles from the big publishers, simply because they are labelled "indie".
As long as people are made to understand and remember that 'indie' just means independent, or that's what it's supposed to mean, as opposed to "lesser".
Although to be fair; 90% of the indie stuff on the likes of Apple App Store the Google Play Store is indeed crap, that really lacks the bare minimum level of polish and quality control I think these games should be required to meet before they are allowed on any of these stores, especially the eShop.
@Kirk The Seal of Quality does not mean what most people seem to think. The revisionist history it's taking is getting ridiculous. The NES (as much as I still love it) was filled with crap that boasted that very Seal.
@TG1
Yeah, the Official Nintendo Seal of Quality really just meant it was basically major bug/crash free and officially licensed, I think, but regardless it did stand for something in most people's minds and I think it would do Nintendo no harm to bring something like it back, with the idea to only release games that fit comfortably under that kind of 'quality' label. Basically, just not the kind of games that look like they could have been slapped together in a few days for release on some freebie Flash site, or that they are works in progress from developers just starting to learn how to make video games.
@Kirk Ooh, Nintendo could just occasionally dip into the indie section to showcase a great game, like every week or something! I hope they're following this conversation, this is gold. XD
@DerpSandwich
That would be cool; picking a game each week and tagging it with the 'Official Nintendo Seal of Quality' as a little way to mark it as the 'Game of the Week'.
@Kirk Ah, I see. It might just lead to even more confusion, but I do definitely hear what you're saying.
@RCMADIAX
Your thoughtful comment regarding developers and their learning curve makes me want to pick up one of your games (probably SHUT THE BOX) when I get a chance.
I hope you keep making games and learn from your mistakes and find some constructive feedback to help you to improve upon what you've learned and to make better games in the future. "You suck!" is never very helpful.
Goodness knows that none of us start at the top and it takes time, effort, passion, and desire to continuously improve upon yourself and the work you make. I know that my teaching has significantly improved over the last 10 years--my score when I first started probably would have only been a 4/10 from NLife, but now I think I'm up to 8/10 or maybe even 9/10.
@james_squared
I agree with what @RCMADIAX is saying to a degree but that doesn't mean I think Nintendo should for example let me release my first ever attempt at a game on their system just because I was still learning game creation when I made it.
I mean if you've got a Mac give it a go: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/izone/id434844051?mt=12
It's actually pretty good fun and really addictive imo but by God the sound is terrible and it's very rough around the edges. I don't think Nintendo should be letting stuff like that on its eShop. I just think its standards should be a little higher than some of the stuff allowed on the likes of the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.
If the games these guys are releasing basically look like something they made while trying to learn how to code or whatever then maybe proper paid digital game platforms like the eShop isn't the place for them yet. There's loads of developer blogs/sites out there for that kind of thing. Nintendo needs to act like a gatekeeper for this kind of content imo.
@RCMADIAX I like you, I'm gonna keep a closer eye on your stuff.
Quorthon does make some good points regarding the influx of shovelware, but I don't think any of this should be aimed towards you.
I believe your games (thus far) have had a 4, 5, 6 and 7 out of 10 from NL? This is all really good.
Maybe you're at the stage where you can aim towards a bigger release, and edge away from these smaller titles. I'd like to see what you can achieve.
Either way, you've spoken your mind but still been completely understanding and listened to what people have said. Don't let it be disheartening.
@gordjscott
I might be wrong here (Please correct me if I'm wrong, @RCMADIAX, and I'm sorry if I am) but it actually looks to me like RCMADIAX is possibly just churning out what are actually freely available template demo games, used by some game development software like Game Maker to teach you how make games in its development environment, as actual release Wii U eShop titles (simply changing the default sprites for his own sprites). Or worse, possibly using pre-made software you pay some douche a few bucks to download and use as pre-built templates for your own games, where once again all you really have to do is change the default sprites and release them under your own label. If so, I personally think it's very shady practice releasing these as paid games; on any platform. I hope I am wrong
PS. I wonder what the likes of my Flappy Bird rip-off game would get if it were released on the eShop and reviewed on NLife lol
TEN EUROS for this piece of shuffle?!
I blame this one on Nintendo. They seem to be really desperate for Third Party support.
1/10 "GET OUT OF MY (e)SHOP!"
@Moshugan
Indeed.
All kinds of people are gonna try to make all kinds of games, especially now that it's so easy, and you can't blame them for trying to make a quick and easy buck in the process, the less fortunate people gotta survive somehow, but you can blame Nintendo for letting them sell particularly low quality games to ignorant consumers.
Nintendo needs to be the gatekeeper here imo.
@TG1
Well, they could pick an eShop 'Game of the Week' and mark it with a 'Game of the Week' stamp that simply looks like the classic 'Official Nintendo Seal of Quality' sticker
1. This has unique control physics (which is a huge difference from bad controls) that fit to the style (and story) of the game.
2. There is some kind of in-game story. (Could be interesting if elaborate/deep enough.)
Despite the lackluster presentation this reminds me of early 80ies platformers, and it seems a bit of creative thought went into this game. I don't think it's a painful 1/10 experience like the Flappy Bird clones or The Letter, but only 22 stages, very bland graphic style, long loading times, and too high price mark it down heavily.
@SKTTR
I wish I could play it myself, without paying for it, so I could actually say if the controls are indeed as bad as the review suggests or just different ("unique" as you put it). There is a clear distinction between the two imo and sometimes it's really hard to tell if a reviewer is fully aware of which they've just experienced; although in this case I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and certainly based on how thrown together the rest of the game looks. I'd still like to play it myself however so I could say for sure one way or another
The graphics however; honestly look like the kind of placeholder sprites and tiles you use when still developing your game, rather than actual finished game art. That I can say with a high degree of conviction.
Yeah, definently the worst looking game on that shop. This honestly looks like the worst Eshop game overall. The Letter is actually kind of enjoyable but lacks in almost every other category. And for those still bashing RCMADIAX, his games actually have a tad bit of 'quality' to them.
@Quorthon
I really think you're taking this too seriously. The graphics in his games are nothing special and they don't need to be, it gets the job done.
@Quorthon why anyone that knows anything about this game buy it?
Wth is that? A game made in Paint? ._.
@RCMADIAX
Good to know and my apologies for suspecting otherwise.
Personally I've enjoyed (and still do) RCMADIAX title called BLOCK DROP U. It is simple to play, cheap to buy and clever on what it does. More of these please.
@Quorthon Oh, okay, sorry! Wish it was easier to recognize sarcasm on the internet!
@smikey:
Yeah, I guess some reviewers think every platformer should control like Mario or along the lines (which would be boring) Others obviously don't practice controls long enough even though they're perfect (Scram Kitty). And some gamers/reviewers simply don't grasp the concept of a game where unusual controls and physics are a wanted/needed mechanic that adds to the gameplay in the long run.
PS. Spikey Walls better graphics? Imo, Spikey Walls is worse in every regard except price. But price isn't an indicator of a game's value or the fun you can have. Content, variety, depth, originality - these are indicators of value and fun! And the 1/10 Tested with Robots! has more of these than the 4/10 Spikey Walls.
I hope this comes to US!
More eshop garbage
Looks like something a first timer would make with Game Maker to test the program...
The kind of project you keep for yourself because you know you're still learning and that it is terrible.
@BensonUii slow clap
Tap here to load 59 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...