
When it was originally announced, it was clear that Skully had the potential to be one of the top five greatest ‘reanimated rolling skull puzzle platformer’ games ever made. Sure enough, it manages to accomplish that (purely by existing, to be fair), but that’s not to say it isn’t without severe issues that will greatly affect your enjoyment of it.
You play as a skull called Skully. That isn’t his actual name, mind you: it’s the moniker bestowed on him by Terry, an excitable green-bearded chap who it quickly emerges is some sort of island god. Terry’s been having problems with his three similarly god-like siblings, so he decides to create Skully – by reanimating a skull that washed up on the shore – in the hope that he’ll help intervene in the argument and stop the island being destroyed.
In his initial form, Skully can roll around and jump, and not much more than that. Being a ball, he does have a degree of momentum as he moves around, although thankfully not too much because there’s a lot of platforming here. This game is not without its frustrating moments, but if Skully acted exactly like a ball and rolled a lot more freely than he does it would have been even more infuriating.

Since you can’t do a lot with rolling and jumping, you eventually discover three different forms that Skully can morph into, each providing him with different abilities. Strong Form turns him into a hefty big lad with a hell of a right hook on him: he can break down walls and create shockwaves that damage enemies. Swift Form, meanwhile, lets you hold down 'ZL' and charge up a speedy run that lets you clear large gaps. This form also lets you use magic to pick up and move certain blocks across the ground. Finally, there’s Vault Form, which gives you a double-jump and the ability to lift blocks into the air.
These forms are spawned by jumping into mud pools (which also act as checkpoints) and choosing which form you want. At any point you can also pull Skully out of a form, leave it standing there and head back to a pool to spawn another one, up to three in total. This makes for some decent puzzles at times: using a Vault Form to lift a platform into the air, for example, then spawning a second Vault Form, double-jumping onto the platform and double-jumping from that. It takes a while for the game to start getting inventive with its puzzles, though, and for the first half of your adventure most situations will be fairly obvious “okay, here’s where I punch a wall” moments.

On paper Skully looks like a winner, and when everything works like it should there’s a genuine sense of satisfaction to be had in moving on from each area to the next. Unfortunately, it’s plagued with problems that more often than not make the game more annoying than appealing. The most obvious of these is that it can look absolutely awful at times, which is clear when you look at the screenshots on this page (especially the handheld ones).
It’s clear that on other platforms this has the potential to be a beautiful game, but this appears to be another situation where a developer has decided to port to Switch, realised they’ve bitten off more they can chew and had to significantly downgrade the visual detail just to get the thing running at more than a single-digit frame rate. There’s some serious dynamic resolution scaling at work here, which means the game is constantly changing the resolution it renders at to try and keep things running smoothly (not that it does: the frame rate is all over the place).

Plenty of Switch games use dynamic resolution to try and keep performance smooth: even Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild do it. But the ones that do it best do it subtly and still manage to keep the resolution fairly high, whereas Skully fails to do this and much of the time you’re staring at an extremely blurry screen. It’s even worse on handheld, where you can stand still and see that it’s pretty blurry, then start running and instantly see everything get even blurrier to a degree that we rarely see on the Switch. Skully may look nice on other systems, but it’s extremely ugly on the Nintendo's console.
The camera also leaves a bit to be desired. For the most part you’re practically in full control of it, which may sound great but it means you’re constantly adjusting it, especially in some later stages where you’re swooping around big curved ramps and the like. Sometimes the game will require you to roll into a tiny gap as Skully and the camera will invariably have a fit when it realises it’s going to have to follow you through it, but these moments aside, it just doesn’t feel very fluid to move around.
It’s even worse during the rare moments when you don’t have control of the camera. Some of the game’s set piece moments have a fixed viewpoint but these invariably were designed with a high-resolution presentation in mind and suffer greatly here. The ‘chase’ stages in particular – where you’re being pursued by a big wall of water or fire – are extremely annoying because the camera zooms so far out that, combined with the blur, you can barely see what’s going on (especially in handheld mode because Skully is absolutely tiny).

The other issue we had is more a matter of taste, but worth noting nonetheless: Terry (the god chap who’s accompanying you) can be very annoying at times. To be fair, the voice acting is of a generally high quality throughout: the three siblings you encounter have their own distinct personalities and are effective in their own way. Terry, however, is the irritating know-it-all type and while that’s deliberately part of his character it’s not the sort of person you want accompanying you for the entire game. He’s the type of guy you sometimes meet who thinks that shouting sarcastic punchlines makes them funnier: “Oh, YA THINK” and the like. Our knuckles are getting whiter with rage as we type this.
Conclusion
Skully isn’t an entirely lost cause. There’s an entertaining enough puzzle platformer hidden underneath its myriad visual flaws. It may be uglier than sin and you may be accompanied by an irritating voiceover throughout, but you’ll still have some fun playing through it and the plot does resolve itself in a nice way by the end. You'll just need to be able to roll with a lot of annoyances to get there.
Comments 35
For all said and done, we have another 'not bad'.
Another way of saying not bad is not good, unless there is something in the middle.
Ah yes, the much sought-after 160p resolution
@zool
Average, mediocre, middling, decent, so-so, uninspired, 6/10, 60%, 3/5, C grade.
Hmm, ah well physical on wishlist for christmas from the weird auntie then.
@Bunkerneath
So you think that I'm weird, do you? No pressie for you!
Auntie x
Someone in NL towers...
'Let's get Chris to review Skully because it sounds a bit like his name'
All I'm saying is my name is pronounced Mar-ten or Mar10 as it were so really i should be reviewing all the Mario games on this site
That or this was just a coincidence.
Probably the latter...
A game looking like this in this time.. no way. They should've invested a bit more time and reducing the resolution and put some more things on the background with sharpness.. it's one blurry game for sure
If this game gets a patch that fixes resolution/performance a bit as well as adjusts some of the respawn pools (heard they’re placed a little poorly) I think I’ll grab it.
@AG_Awesome have to agree the respawn pools sound like a royal pain
@martynstuff It's a shame my name isn't Fred Zero
Having watched the Xbox trailer I must say the game doesn’t look that well crafted and that might be why it looks fugly on Switch. It does however look like it could be decently fun.
@TheFullAndy not average, that would be a 5, unless you were comparing two or more. 😄
@zool
Well if Not Bad = Not Good then I think Average is fair.
There is another way to describe it! "Fair"
@zool Contextually, in the English language, not bad doesn't mean not good. It generally means "kind of good". If someone eats a sandwich and says "hey, that's not bad" it doesn't equally correlate to "Hey, that's not good". Almost any native English speaker would say the person is saying it's pretty decent or even fairly good.
Whether or not you think the game is kind of good or something else entirely doesn't change the obviously intended meaning behind the words.
Anyone else think they should do away with scores on Nintendo Life? A lot of reviews this year particularly have been so odd in the correlation between what's written and the score a game ends up getting.
@zool Meh, these days, with so many available "good" or even "great" games, "not good" or "ok" does sort of equivocate to "bad". Mainly because if you're an informed consumer, then you'd ask yourself, "Why should I get this, when I could get a better game of its genre?"
Mediocre games exist for someone's relative to buy at a low price as a gift or the small groups that revel in seeing how mediocre or bad games like these are.
It's almost like the 1000 or so words above the score are a better way of summing up the game than the one or two words next to the score
@Brydontk Sometimes a mediocre game can hit all the right buttons according to your personal tastes despite the fact that it's not a great game. For myself, I like the game Grip: Combat Racing despite it's somewhat murky graphics, unpredictable physics and controls that are good or bad depending on how fast your are going. Needless to say, it's a rough game that should have gotten more polish before release. But I love chaotic, fast paced racing mayhem so I enjoy it despite it's flaws. It may not appeal to the masses, but there's still a market for these "not great" games. And if these weird experiments stopped getting made, we'd end up with a game selection that might be higher quality, but much more uniform.
@TheFullAndy avarage is the result of comparing two or more numbers to get the average of those numbers. One number alone would not have an average.
@Deltath the reviews conclusion is mostly negative, yet the score suggests the game is not bad. So if it's not bad and also not good, because of the negative connotation, it has to be one or the other, unless their is a middle ground. Maybe Mediocre as @brydontk suggests.
@zool
Why you giving brydontk the credit? I gave you a whole host of alternate descriptions including mediocre well before they said it!! 😂
And as scully1888 says, maybe read his actual review rather than just the score and highlights at the bottom.
Terry should be the next Smash Bros fighter.
Well that’s a let down, I was hoping this would be worth picking up but there are too many cons listed for my liking. I can usually let graphics slide a touch, but they don’t sound great and then if you add poor performance on top of that, it sounds like I would be more likely to end up super frustrated rather than having fun. What a shame
@TheFullAndy you are correct and I can confirm that the credit is all yours. 👍
@zool
That makes me feel better 😎
I wonder if it's bad enough to earn a Digital Foundry video ala Ark Survival... These kinds of games fascinate me sometimes. I've ended up playing a fair amount of Rime on Switch even though it was pretty horrible at launch. Rime now runs mostly at 30fps, pretty steadily most of the time, and at a higher resolution than at launch.
Also, I did like the trailer so I'm curious to try it out, but maybe on a more powerful system...
@TheFullAndy @scully1888
It seems like 6 and 8 are safe scores for reviewers. I don't want to praise it to much but I don't want to say it's not as good as expected.
Paper Mario is a good example, it got an 8 because 7 seemed harsh, but it was definitely a 7.
Especially when you include value for money, which most reviewers conveniently avoid.
Since I won't buy most of the games that are reviewed I don't waste time reading low score reviews. A score of 6 and I will read the conclusion. If a reviewer can't summarise why the score is why it is, then they won't do it in a fully review.
I have always maintained that a score out of 5 (with no half scores) would be a more accurate way to rate a game. There would be less of a 'sitting on the fence' review and a more realistic reviewer opinion.
If it's good say it's good and if it's not say it's not
@zool
What it was was that personal reviewer's opinion of the game. That is all it was.
We are all different and would rate all games differently. Even a game everyone else loves I might despise, like Halo, and there are a bunch of people who just cannot accept that Resident Evil 4 is in fact the best game of all time.
I trust my own instincts for buying games, reviews are handy for letting me know a game isn't a buggy mess but end of the day the only person whose view I trust regarding games is myself.
That has led me to buying a couple of awful games but 99% of the time I know what I like and I am happy with the games I buy.
@zool We've discussed this before: Paper Mario got an 8 because I really enjoyed it despite the bits I disliked. If I felt it deserved a 7 instead, I'd have given it a 7 instead. I've written 104 reviews for this site so far: in 19 of them I gave a 6, but in 26 of them I gave a 7.
This idea that 6 and 8 are "safe scores" just isn't true, I'm sorry: I have no issues using the full scoring scale available to me. I've given 2, 3 and 4 on here, and also given 9 and 10 at times.
@TheFullAndy you may trust your own view, but that comes while you are playing the game, which suggests you have made a purchase. Ok I played The Thousand Year Door so my view is that I'll like the new Paper Mario. But that's not so.
If I had to review a football game it would get a low score because I don't like football games, unless I could review it objectively.
@nintendope64 SAID Yesterday, 7:39pm
"Anyone else think they should do away with scores on Nintendo Life? A lot of reviews this year particularly have been so odd in the correlation between what's written and the score a game ends up getting."
REPLY: No. On the contrary, the scores should be more detailed and analyzed.
@Cosats that makes sense too. At the moment they're just plonked at the end with no real exhaustive thoughts. Like, how negative was the majority of this review? Would you expect the author to say it's "not bad" after reading it? I sure wouldn't!
If they can improve the graphics that would make it more fun...
Is this really what you call a bad port? I've seen worse ports on Switch in the past (I still can't get out of my head those pre-2019 days ugh....), and judging from those screenshots I can only say here they at least kept the visual indentity. Even the grass is still there!
But hey, the draw distances and reflections could be improved so... looking at the bright side, all this "complaining" will likely result in a patch dropping anytime.
Speaking about the gameplay itself...it reminds me of Knack on PS4 and some N64 platformers, and that combined with a lot of depth makes this game interesting to me, maybe in the future I will get it.
I see that Skully patch 1.0.2 dropped on 14 April 2021. Does anybody know what it addressed?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...