Back in 1994, a company called Clickteam debuted Klik n Play, an amateur development program that allowed anyone to participate in the process of creating and sharing their own video games. One of the best parts of the software was its simplicity, which forewent complex coding in favor of a drag-and-drop environment with an intuitive "event-based" system to help newcomers form the rules for their worlds and characters. The developers particularly encouraged its use in school as a way of introducing children to the concepts behind computer programming.
What does any of this have to do with Arrow Time U, another low-budget indie game making use of Nintendo Web Framework? Simply put, it feels hardly different than the projects this reviewer worked on as a child using Klik n Play back in the late 90's. Make no mistake — some truly wonderful games have come out of seasoned developers who feel comfortable using the modern-day equivalents of this software — but Arrow Time U is definitively not one of those games. Packed wall to wall with mistakes and a lack of polish, it’s another flat entry in a long line of titles raising concerns about quality control on the eShop — especially when you consider the $1.99 price tag and the lofty $750 goal the game failed to raise on Indiegogo.
Like many of its Web Framework contemporaries, the issues with Arrow Time U are evident from the second you boot up the software. Let’s not mince words: every element of this game’s presentation is atrocious. First and foremost, it seems generous to call the graphics anything but “functional” — the primitive onscreen objects are a jumbled mess of clashing elements that look particularly ghastly when covered in tutorial text at the beginning of the game. The sound design doesn't fare much better; repetitive sound effects and music will test your patience, especially the "Ready? Go!" before each level and this original piece of music (with lyrics!). Most alarmingly, it misses key elements that would help it feel like a finished and quality product, such as a screen between a failed attempt at a level and your next try. One could argue this cuts back on frustration as you’re returned quickly to gameplay, but the result feels jarring and amateurish — “game over” screens are kind of an understood feature in modern games of this ilk.
Speaking of “game over” screens, you’d likely be seeing quite a lot of them had the developer thought to put them in. Arrow Time U can be difficult at times, mostly for the wrong reasons. The main concept is as such: guide your blue arrow to the portal while avoiding obstacles, utilizing gimmicks and fighting against a time limit. Your powers include a meter-limited “slide” to move through any object, the ability to slow down time, and a mechanic that allows you to glide diagonally without changing the actual direction of the arrow. After completing each stage you’re given a rating that presumably sums up your performance.
Most of Arrow Time U’s levels have a puzzle element for which a hint is available to view on the pause screen. Unfortunately, while the developer’s heart seems firmly in the right place regarding these puzzles — some of the ideas seem pretty good on paper — their actual execution ranges from confusing to maddeningly incompetent. For example, in one stage you’re surrounded by a ring of 12 smaller portals resembling the hands of a clock. To reach the outside of the ring where the big portal lies, you have to enter the smaller ones that correspond with the “clock code” just above it. This should be a routine manoeuvre, but the clunky turning and poor acceleration of the arrow ensure you’ll struggle to place it in any portal between the cardinal directions. Even more aggravating is a level that requires you to hit dash panels and slide through walls with timing that never feels satisfying or totally under your control; then there are outright lame puzzles like the one in level 19, whose hint offers only “patience” and involves waiting until the clock is nearly up to make the portal appear.
But even some of the stages that do work correctly feel unfair. Arrow Time U's biggest mistake is in its core design, which expects an obnoxious amount of trial and error of its players. Some levels are so big compared to the time limit that it's well-nigh impossible to navigate and complete them the first time around. Others shove you into claustrophobic rooms and force you to literally guess which portal to take to the next area (a la Sabrina's gym in the original Pokémon Red and Blue). Good puzzles are intuitive, making players use the abilities they've been given in ways that feel natural given the level layouts. In this game, however, you never feel totally responsible for your success or failure; you remain at the mercy of the game's fickle design from start to finish. Because of that, you'll rarely (if ever) be having fun with the experience, and that's the kiss of death to any video game aiming to engage the player.
Conclusion
Baffling missteps are all over Arrow Time U, and because of this it’s likely you won’t be returning to any of the game’s 40 levels after completing them. This is primarily due to shoddy collision detection and poor control, both of which will often leave you more relieved to have cleared a stage than proud of having conquered its challenges. Yet the problem goes deeper than that: Arrow Time U brings nothing to the table that gamers haven’t seen done before, and done better. It’s the type of cookie-cutter game you see produced en masse for mobile phones — a derivative, sloppy imitation product that came off the production line half-baked.
Learning how to make games is an incredibly fun experience, and one that we suggest any fan of the medium at least take a crack at, but even the $1.99 price tag of Arrow Time U is too high to justify paying for what feels like a failed homework assignment in game design.
Comments 15
this is stupid now...
A two seems harsh but I knowingly about it and only seen a couple of levels.
"Let us point you in the direction of something more fun" Ha!That made me laugh more than it should'ave.
Nintendo should really put a section on the eshop for all the critically acclaimed indirect games. Because there's are actually a few good quality budget games and they deserve their spot like instead of being loss in the shuffle with crap like this.
Nintendo should really put a section on the eshop for all the critically acclaimed indirect games. Because there's are actually a few good quality budget games and they deserve their spot like instead of being loss in the shuffle with crap like this.
@Deadstanley I certainly do. The NES library in particular was full of poor games. "The Seal" has taken on revisionist history, not meaning what many seem to think it did.
That trailer screams sub $10 budget
While I certainly enjoyed my time with the game more than you did I feel like your criticisms are spot-on. In the current marketplace its hard to recommend titles like these.
I've yet to see one decent game using the nintendo web framework, for the sake of the quality of the platform I think they should just get rid of it and tell people to stick to unity
Oh please give us a break!
@TG1 That is not entirely true. The seal did involve some degree of true quality control back in the time. It's true that the NES had a lot of bad games, but compared to open home computer platforms, a certain standard was met. This surely didn't mean that the games allowed to be released were necessarily "good", but they were quality and they met certain criteria Nintendo saw as important. This is still the case today, seal or not. Hence, while the seal ensured some degree of quality, I guess a game with a comparable "quality" as Arrow Time may still have been allowed to be released even then.
@Specter_Twilight But you misinterpret just what you quote. The quote precisely says EVALUATED and licensed. Whereas it does certainly not mean, like you say, that Nintendo had distributed it.
@thaantman True, but I think Nintendo does that already. Games like this, you do not see them advertised in the eShop, but merely mentioned on the list of new releases. Considering that many games like this do not even get one rating, they do not seem to sell so well. Good games, by contrast, are fairly prominently presented in the Shop. That is a big difference towards the Wii Shop Channel, where each release was presented in pretty much the same way. Now, bad games like this appear almost invisible anyway. Therefore I consider the problem to be much smaller than some people make it.
@RCMADIAX the answer is in your reply, as far as I can see the simple fact nintendo have made it easier with NWF mean it's much easier for devs to churn out absolute trash and flood the market with shovelware. Whether these titles cost pocket change it's irrelevant, your own Spikey Walls being a good example of this. You'll obviously believe you've filled a gap in the market and if it's made you some money then good for you, but lets be honest the eshop to a casual gamer is an absolute minefield of trash, thankfully there are websites out there like this one to highlight the rubbish.
In answer to the original question, I've actually seen some good games made using Unity, sure there's a ton of rubbish as well but there are some good games, games using NWF however seem to be exclusively rubbish
@Morph XType Plus is an excellent game at a very fair price, and made with the NWF. Nintendo has a Mario and Donkey Kong NWF demo that looks like it could see a proper release on Wii U.
Ew. Leave it to someone to spoil the name of indie developers..
@JustinH It doesnt change the fact that the rest are garbage, i'd wager that by the time the wii u is done 80%+ of those games developed with NWF will have scored 5 or less on this website
Tap here to load 15 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...