Round Up: The Reviews Are In For Kirby's Return To Dream Land Deluxe

Someone should tell IGN and Gamespot staff that Kirby games are supposed to be easy. It’s not a newsflash here, it’s almost always been this way.

Don’t really care for IGN’s review. I stopped trusting them after a while, honestly. Glad to see that the majority of the reception is positive.

@TheBigBlue I don't think anyone would mind a harder mode though. I can understand where IGN is coming from. I wouldn't give the game a 7/10 for that reason alone though.

Meh, I played the demo and it just felt basic and dated after playing Forgotten Land. Hoping all future Kirby games will be 3D going forward!

Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe is going onto my Switch either way. I loved the original and the other two mainline titles on my Switch (and the 3DS as well), and this remake is looking to be Kirby's "Strike Turkey" on Switch for me.

@TheBigBlue As a long time Kirby fan I see nothing wrong with that review. It's valid as far I'm concerned.

My 6 year old loves Kirby and I’ve always found the games enjoyable but probably wouldn’t consider buying this if it wasn’t for her. It’ll be nice to play it coop.

@WiiWouldLikeToPlay At least the games offer up any sort of hard mode. The meat and potatoes of the game is to play through the main story. Once that’s done, you get something like a boss rush or harder story mode. People will argue that there should be a hard option at the start, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter, at least it exists. And if someone doesn’t like that, then don’t purchase it! Easy. Most people fail to realize that if they don’t like a video game, they can either not buy it, or never play again. Simply logic, really. Also ign shouldn’t be detracting scores from the game for that reason. It’s nitpicking and unfair. It’s like asking a billionaire tech expert like Bill Gates to make you a corn dog. The game was intended to be easy.

IGN's review for the game is pretty harshly worded for a 7/10. Every sentence is negatively contradictory in that summary paragraph. It's almost like the reviewer was forced to play the game and was going to give it a 5 or lower but had to keep it a 7 because of IGN's publication standard and editors.

I disagree with almost everything written there (even in the full review), especially the part about criticizing the game for being short. It's actually a fairly meaty experience with several worlds and levels and one of the longer Kirby games, plus a full mini game castle/Kirby Party experience. And sometimes a shorter game is fun for pickup and play nature, not everyone has the time to sink into a 100+ hour RPG.

The Metacritic score is currently a 5-point improvement over the original. In an era where it feels like many remasters have lower aggregate scores on average, that's something I find really exciting.

I really wish the difficulty was a little more scalable. Oh well, I’m still getting it. Will be a quick romp to beat and a periodic return to 100% the game.

I noticed this in the preview too, IGN's general coverage of Kirby RtDLDX has felt really reductive. Practically every sentence or bit of praise was followed up by "even if it's easy" or "even if it's simple". It's been almost a decade since their infamous Triple Deluxe 6/10 review and it still feels like the people on that site haven't shaken the mentality that Kirby is some mediocre game series for babies and no one else.

@TheBigBlue "People will argue that there should be a hard option at the start, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter, at least it exists."

I would argue that you shouldn't have to beat the game just to be able to play it the way you want to. There is, in my opinion, no good reason to make a game less fun for experienced players. (Or less fun for newer players if a game is hard)

"Also ign shouldn’t be detracting scores from the game for that reason. It’s nitpicking and unfair ... The game was intended to be easy."

That brings up some serious questions about how we review games in the first place. Do we judge them based off of what they are trying to be or what they could be? Take for instance, Pokemon. I could ignore all the valid criticism of S/V by saying that the game was never intended to be a technical showcase and people should just enjoy the game for what it is. I could use that argument to ignore criticism of any game.

@TheBigBlue

I really don't get this attitude.

I love Kirby, but acknowledge that reviewers will use a standard for all games, not a subset to accomodate the Kirby series.

I enjoy the Expendables movies, but recognise that they are just stupid fun.
It would be bizarre if I commented:
"Someone should tell The Guardian that Expendables movies are supposed to be silly, It’s not a newsflash here, it’s almost always been this way."

@Uncle_Franklin @WiiWouldLikeToPlay You two said it better than I. So a like for ya boths.

@TheBigBlue

"if they don’t like a video game, they can either not buy it, or never play again."

I fail to see why they can't also discuss the merits and demerits of a game, on a gaming website, especially under an article discussing review scores.

And in a similar vein to the above quote, an IGN score isn't forcing you to refrain from buying a Kirby game.

@WiiWouldLikeToPlay The game is rated E for everyone, so there is cold hard truth in wanting a game to appeal to that demographic to. I understand this, as much as it seems like I’m blind to this. Gave both comments a like because they give much better points. Won’t justify what I’ve said because that will just be ignorant and rude.

“I love Kirby, but acknowledge that reviewers will use a standard for all games, not just a review to accommodate Kirby.”

This is also very true. The way I worded seems like I was making it out to be a biased review. It’s not a biased review. If they say the first part is a slog, and they mean this honestly, and there is no point in lying by about it. Honesty is the best policy, and warping their view of the game in its favor has no point.

Kirby games were never meant to be hard...only time they're hard is when you're 100%ing them, because they have some pretty tough challenges sometimes.

@PikaPhantom To be fair, it is only early days. The only people who would have picked it up currently would be hardcore Kirby fans and the occasional critic. I would expect the score to slowly slide down on Metacritic as time goes by.

My take on the complaining about Kirby games not being hard.

Isn't that like complaining the Dark Souls games aren't easy?

How could Kirby be easy even though the first game of the series had a hard mode after the first time winning the game.

@Axecon Eh, it's fair criticism. HLTB has the game pegged at 6.5 hours, which is rather short for a full-priced game. People complain all the time about play length when a $20 indie game is only 2 hours. DK Tropical Freeze is about twice as long, so 2D platformer isn't the excuse.

The game also doesn't offer much of a challenge, which is fair, but then I'd rather see other things to keep me engaged. Games like Epic Yarn and Rainbow Curse had interesting visuals (that didn't really affect gameplay unfortunately), but this one is visually also pretty standard.

It's a short and easy platformer, that doesn't do anything special. I think some criticism is perfectly fair. If it's worth $60 to you, more power to you! I definitely wouldn't recommend it to everyone though.

@kirbysupremacy Hm? User scores aren't up yet, and won't be available until a bit after launch. And there's enough reviews up to where, at most, it'd probably only slide down a point or two

I wouldn't mind an optional content hard mode if it doesn't lock anything important but hard disagree with IGN's review. Doesn't seem fair imo.

The worst thing you can say about this good Kirby adventure/platformer game is that it is remastered from a already done Wii game, so for some people it will be similar and that criticism is only for people who played it already, who probably mostly feel fine and happy to play this again anyway and even then Nintendo has done a good job here.

Out of all the ports, I really don't mind playing this again on Switch and the epilogue and extra minigames sounds a nice addition.

So nothing else to be so negative about really.

@WiiWouldLikeToPlay A lot of Kirby games DO have harder modes, they just all force you to beat the game first to access them.

@PikaPhantom Oh, ok.

@HammerGalladeBro agreed, the difficulty is part of the design philosophy for Kirby as a whole. Always has been. People say “games are art” and “respect the developers” until devs do something that they don’t like.

@PikaPhantom But be aware when buying this, it's not going to be groundbreaking for a Kirby game. I know you already knew that, but get it into your head that this is a slighter more polished 12 year old game.

@Ryu_Niiyama Where exactly is the disrespect though. Asking for a bit of a challenge is no one way any disrespect. You can be critical while still respecting a choice.

I just don't get why this review is getting so much flak. All they asked for is a bit more challenge, and most here have taken that as meaning "Kirby Dark Souls 2.0"

@HammerGalladeBro

IGN on Dark Souls:

"The reviewer's job is difficult when it comes to a game like Dark Souls. I simply can't unreservedly recommend that you buy it. It's not a game that you play to relax."

On Lost Levels:
"The Lost Levels feels a lot like a fan-made hack – with platforming challenges that are just a bit too frustrating"

So reviewers do take difficulty into account.
And in my experience of reading reviews, take an especially dim view of games that have a steep or uneven difficulty curve.

And from gleaning the more negative reviews on this page, the lack of difficulty was just one of a few factors holding this Kirby entry back.

Saying all that, I'm tempted to get it.

@kirbysupremacy I started playing the original version on Wii U before I dropped it because of the announcement of Deluxe. I know what I'm getting into, haha

I’m pretty sure everyone knows that ign doesn’t seem to like the Kirby games all because they think that all games should be hard to be great. Plus aren’t they the same people that gave a positive score to tlou 2 even though people didn’t like it?
(Also the whole too much water thing with ORAS)

@PtM

Thank goodness you didn't mention the dirty knife.

@Uncle_Franklin “You b*stards!”

@Nancyboy

The war wound!

Not surprised with IGN's score. They panned Double Dragon Neon and a bunch of other good games based off of personal preference. They're extremely unprofessional.

@WiiWouldLikeToPlay

Judging poor performance is relevant. Judging a game known for having an easy difficulty curve is like judging a blonde girl for being blonde or ice cream for being fattening....It's kinda why people buy it in the first place...

These are very different things to judge something by. Also, if the Kirby game ran as poorly as the new Pokemon game, then it would be fair game to judge it off of that premise.

@daveMcFlave Kirby is so easy in fact you don't have to pretend to try.

@Frailbay30

If you fight down on the ground and go for 100 percent completion, it can actually be a bit challenging. If you play cheap, and spend most of the time floating around above and skipping everything, then yeah, it can be insanely easy.

Well, ign gave it a higher score than they did the first time around (if I recall correctly, didn’t they give the original 5.5, 6.5?]

I’ll have to get this eventually. I missed out on the Wii version.

@daveMcFlave I think, at the end of the day, this debate really just boils down to personal opinion. Reviews are and always have been entirely subjective, and judging a game is always at least partially based off of wishes, personal gripes, and bias. What matters and what doesn't in reviewing a game isn't set in stone and is entirely up to the reviewer. In that same way, what matters to you in a game will be entirely different than what matters to me. Hence why some people agreed with IGN and others didn't.

People who love Kirby games: what do you love about them?
I'm genuinely asking. For me it's too easy so I can't get through it. But I guess people are enjoying it for other reasons. What are they? What does it make you feel?

@geshem For me personally, the series has always had its own unique charm and characters that differ from many other franchises don’t have. It’s more laid back and colourful than say, Call Of Duty for example. The backdrops are really pretty and full of life, the very same as the characters. The storylines of each game are far from praiseworthy (One such plot involved Kirby destroying a group of mice and an evil star for a final boss, all because Kirby’s strawberry cake was stolen. I’m not even kidding, the game is called Squeak Squad!) Still, unique series exclusive game mechanics like stealing enemies’s abilities to gains variety of powers, from fire breathing to shooting geysers of water from your head, and being able to float in the air at all times, making it easy to cross small gaps. The games are cute and harmless, but many argue the games are super easy, you don’t need any effort to burn through the entire game in an hour or two, which is indeed true. Don’t expect a challenge from a Kirby game, if that’s the sort of thing you like in video games. If you express interest in buying a Kirby game, they are super accessible, controls are super simple. Go for it if you want to!

@TheBigBlue Thanks for the answer! I wanted to enjoy them in the past, Kirby's cute and I like the idea of the inhaling mechanic, but I guess my brain just needs some challenge to stay engaged. It's interesting that the breeziness of it is exactly what some people enjoy.

I hope it gets updated with online multiplayer.

@daveMcFlave Not really. That's also saying that if a developer releases enough broken games with poor performance, it is what you should expect, and therefore you shouldn't judge their games based on the poor performance.

If a game is too easy, that's perfectly fair criticism, just as when a game is too hard, or when it doesn't offer any difficulty options. Even though it may be the thing it is well known for.

@Octane

Nobody buys a game off the premise that the performance is bad. Having an easy or flexible difficulty curve, is not a fault of a game - that's a matter of personal preference. Poor performance and optimization are fundamental game flaws that nobody asks for. It's a bit perplexing that you don't see the difference between these.

@PikaPhantom It's already gone down to 79 0_0