In February of last year, a promising project called Summer in Mara was released on Kickstarter. Appearing as something of a cross between The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and the Harvest Moon games, many fans were quickly enamoured by the cute art style and seemingly wholesome story. A little over a year later, Summer in Mara has finally released on digital storefronts and the final product is… disappointing. Though it certainly delivers on the ‘wholesome’ vibes that it sold itself on, critical failures in both the storytelling and gameplay mechanics mean that Summer in Mara simply isn’t an enjoyable game to play.
The story follows Koa, a young girl who was involved in a shipwreck as a baby and now lives on a tropical island with her ‘grandmother’, a fish lady named Yaya Haku who saved Koa from the wreck. The two live a peaceful life on their island, which clearly has a much grander, supernatural purpose, and the proper narrative soon kicks into gear when a mysterious sea creature named Napopo washes up on their island. What follows over the next dozen or so hours can only be summed up as one lengthy, arduous fetch quest that comes up with increasingly contrived reasons for Koa to get back on her boat and go find another island.
For example, an early quest sees you needing to talk to a woman on a busy island not far from Koa’s. Upon reaching the island, you can’t talk to the woman directly but must first wait to talk to fishermen running a store that isn’t open yet. Once the fishermen tell you where she is (which you already know), you then get to run all the way to the other side of the island to finally talk to her, only to discover that she doesn’t want to talk to you. To get her to talk to you, you have to go back to the fishermen’s shop, where you’re told you have to talk to other people in town to figure out how to talk to this woman. You’re not told who would have this information, so you have to talk to everyone until you find the correct people, who each have their own tiresome errands you have to do before they’ll tell you what you need to know.
It would be bad enough if this meandering wild goose chase meant something, but it turns out that the entire game is predicated on this almost comical focus on wasting your time. There are times where you’ll be given a quest to advance the story that requires an item you’ve neither seen nor heard about up to that point. The only way to obtain the item, then, requires you to put in a few more hours into a side questline that didn’t previously seem to have any importance at all. You might put in that time only to realize that it actually didn’t have any importance. As a result, any legitimate emotional investment or interest in the story is quickly torched by the sheer frustration of making simple progress – a sentiment that unfortunately extends to gameplay, as well.
The core gameplay is centred around a mixture between a Zelda-like grand adventure and a Stardew Valley-style farming sim. The vast ocean is host to a litany of islands to visit with their own items and unique topography, while Koa’s island has all the land you need for crops and farming animals alongside activities like fishing or crafting new tools. The fruits of your agricultural efforts here ultimately drive your progression, but this is where the main sticking point comes in. Koa can only farm or craft on her island alone, meaning that any amount of exploration or interaction with NPCs will inevitably end in you having to clamber back on the boat and sail through a mostly featureless ocean and a few loading screens just to perform a basic action.
Summer in Mara prides itself on being a relaxed and calm experience, but it does so at the expense of there being any meaningful stakes to anything you do. Take farming, for example. Planted crops will have a number above their plot that indicates how many days it’ll take until you can harvest it. Watering the crops will drop that number by a day for each day that you do it, but if you choose not to water your crops, nothing will happen other than you having to wait a little longer to harvest. You won’t even have to wait, however, because you can choose to sleep in your bed at any time and pass the current day. There are no months or seasons to speak of here, so it’s in the player’s best interest to simply plant the crop, then jump in and out of bed for however many ‘days’ it takes to reach harvest day.
The issue here is that the complete lack of any meaningful difficulty robs the entire experience of being anything more than a rote exercise in testing one’s patience. When there is fundamentally no way you can ‘lose’, the whole concept of winning holds no meaning at all. This, in turn, leads to a bizarrely protracted experience that’s neither enjoyable nor satisfying. For example, Koa has a stamina meter that governs all the actions she can perform, and if it empties, she passes out and immediately begins her next day with only a partially-filled stamina meter.
Now, this would mean something if her absence caused her crops to die, or her animals to starve, or some other consequence to result. Such a thing would incentivize the player to play in a way that optimized their efforts and carefully balanced the costs of actions against their benefits. In reality, however, it doesn’t matter whether Koa passes out or not. The crops will continue to grow regardless of whether they’ve tasted a single drop of water, the quest givers will wait until the heat death of the universe for you to complete their chores, and the only drawback of a blackout will be the inconvenience of having to refresh your stamina by eating some food and getting some good sleep.
So, the core gameplay loop of Summer in Mara is fundamentally broken, and the story has no pacing or emotional resonance whatsoever – but what about the presentation? Well, this is where this release somewhat redeems itself, if only somewhat. The world that exists on the Ocean of Mara is delightfully well-designed, and it has a way of lulling you into a sense of calmness that calls to mind the chilled locales of Super Mario Sunshine. The tropical environments you explore are bright, serene, and filled with a kind of friendly atmosphere that, despite all the other shortcomings present in Summer in Mara’s design, makes you want to keep exploring.
Couple that world design with some well-drawn character portraits (not to mention that impressively-animated opening cutscene) and it’s almost criminal that the rest of Summer in Mara is so unremarkable and lacklustre. This sentiment extends to the music, too, which mixes together ukuleles, accordions, flutes, and other light instruments to provide a soothing and pleasant soundtrack to the monotony of the actual game experience. Like the art direction, this sound design deserves to be in a much better game.
Conclusion
We won’t mince words here, Summer in Mara has absolutely nothing to offer that hasn’t been done much better in other games that are easily available right now. If you want a cozy farm sim with a pleasant atmosphere, get Stardew Valley or Rune Factory 4. If you want a thrilling adventure you can take at your own pace, get Minecraft or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Even if you’ve played those and are looking for something new, please don’t waste your time or money here. This is not a 'hidden gem'; the alluring presentation of Summer in Mara only acts as a pretty mask for a much uglier game beneath the surface – one that’s keen on wasting your time with no meaningful payoff.
Comments 92
I wasn't expecting that, good to know though.
OUCH
Too bad. I liked the art style.
What a harshly low score. I have the game (backed on indiegogo) and I actually like it. Sure it's no first party Nintendo game. But, for an indie game it's very good.
Also it runs very well on my Switch. A < 5 score should only be given for games that are unplayable. I'd say this is a good 6/10.
Also the review reads as if the reviewer really wanted to hate the game. So I'm going to give the review a 1/10.
Urgh, I was really looking forward to this. I’ll have a nosy round the other sites and maybe get it on sale.
Ouch! And this game looked soooo promising. Ah well, time to skip.
Darn. I was super hyped to pick this up. But hey, I’m glad I know before I wasted the money.
@Ralizah I know the art style looked beautiful. It seemed like a chill vacation game but I guess not.
Wow, this is... surprising. It didn't look bad.
Edit: I've seen the PC version of this game has a 7.1/10 in metacritic. Does it really run so bad on Switch??? Maybe this score is because is unplayable in this console, but I didn't see it in the review...
@sanderev For me, if a game is unplayable then that's a 1/10. A 5/10 should be a game that's just okay and anything less than that should be a 3-4 at best.
Ouch... I have to say I didn't expect a 3/10 for this one.
@BenAV I only give games a 1/10 if it's Epic Game Store exclusive or simply won't ever load. If a game loads and has massive framerate and resolution problems I'll give it a 2/10. A 3/10 for games that have one of them. A 4/10 for a game that does play decent enough but has game breaking bugs. A 5/10 is for a working game that's just not fun. A 6/10 is for a working game, that can be fun but isn't really good. (yep, that applies to this game). A 7-7.5/10 is for games that work and are quite good (average) but not great. 8.0-8.9/10 for games that are great. And 9.000 / 9.999 for games that are awesome. (Max score BotW with 9.724)
@BenAV Totally agree. Why would you give an unplayable game anything other than 1/10?!
@Yorumi Honestly I'd already removed the game from my eShop wish list before this review anyway after reading some others. It might not deserve such a low score but it's not for me regardless.
@BenAV but that has nothing to do with giving it a low score haha. I don't like AC:NH so I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean it's worth a 5/10 or something XD
@sanderev It's fine if you think it's better than the reviewer did, but you're way off on this site's review policy. A score of less than 5 is given to any game that's below average. Games that are unplayable get scored as a 1 or a 2 at best
@the_beaver All a reviewer can do is form an opinion based on their experience with the game. If they don't enjoy it then they should give it a low score.
@sanderev A game can be playable but still boring and complete crap. Those deserve below a five. I'm honestly getting tired of the "If it's playable then don't rate it low" mentality. That basically cuts the score ratings in half since 95% of games are technically playable.
Kudos if you enjoyed though.
@BulbasaurusRex From the scoring policy:
"3 - Bad
This is the sort of game you buy and instantly wish you didn't. The developers and publishers are probably well aware of what went wrong and are trying to put a brave face on it. Don't be fooled, accept our warning and run a mile!"
I 100% disagree with this. The game is a lot better than that.
@sanderev: Wow your review scale is really wonky. 5/10 is the halfway mark... not the starting point lol
@Yorumi All reviews are biased, no matter who writes them or who they publish for. A review is simply one person's thoughts and opinions. There is no scientific formula for what makes a game good or bad. That's why games like Death Stranding can be so divisive.
For the record this is the same score they gave WWE 2K18 which is an already poor game terribly ported to the Switch chock full of game ruining bugs.
It seems unfair to rate this the same.
@ShadowSniper7 5/10 isn't the starting point. Let me explain it:
Developer A wants to make a Pong game.
1. The game loads but instantly crashes on the "start game" screen.
2. The game runs at 5 fps with a resolution of < 480p.
3. Same as two but one of them is fixed.
4. Both of them are fixed, but whenever your paddle hits the ball the game crashes.
5. Is my halfway point. The game can be played from beginning to end, but it's the very basic black and white Pong game on repeat.
6. The game has modern graphics and keeps your score, the game also has an increasingly difficult AI.
7.0 The game let's you play vs a local friend. 7.5 it does that nicely.
8.0-8.9 the game has online multiplayer, and the .x decides how well it's implemented.
9-9.999 is unavailable since it's just a Pong clone.
The score takes notice of what the developer set out to make. However for a 9+ score it does needs to be extraordinary good. It's also called the "wow"-factor.
If I adjust this scale to Summer in Mara, a 3D indie farming simulation game. Well.. I end up with a 6/10. Maybe even a 7 once I finish it.
@BenAV Yes and no. We all know a review is based on the experiences of the reviewer, but we also expect them to be impartial. If they are given a type of game they don´t really enjoy, they should review it based on the quiality of the game, not on their personal tastes.
For example, I don´t like shooters, but if I had to review Bioshock for Switch (as a professional reviewer, I probably should) I´d have to focus on the type of game it is, and make the critic based on what makes a shooter good, even though it´s a game I know it will be hard for me to enjoy very much. And I would probably give it a 9/10 (based on other reviews, at least) because I´d know it´s a great game and very well done. I´d admit it. The fact that it´s not something for my tastes shouldn´t be important and shouldn´t affect the final score.
That is what we all expect from a professional, I think (for the record, I´m not saying this review is the case; it´s just a general statement).
looked nice didnt expect such a low review.
@sanderev This is why I always check metacritic before taking any NL review seriously. The review scores seem to go from bad to great, probably depending on whether or not the reviewer had his mind set on a very specific genre and setting himself to be disappointed. Thanks to you, I'll keep this game on my radar if it improves.
Although I disagree with your scoring system. If a game works perfectly in 1080/60FPS with super short load time, but the gameplay is about as enjoyable as stabbing yourself in the eyes, it till deserves a 3, even a 2.
And I wish scoring systems all had a zero, or even a negative score for fundamentally broken games (-10 for a game that doesn't start, -8 if it crashes on a main quest/level, -6 for regular crashes and -2 is the famerate gives you a headache within 5 minutes). A separate work for gameplay/story and amount of bugs could also work
@Yorumi True. That would be the ideal thing to do.
Jesus. Talk about Extreme disappointment...
@Yorumi I don't know if they are biased against everything else...they gave the awful Outer Worlds port and Mutant Year Zero, 8 out of 10's...maybe it's because they don't have a need for an Amazon affiliate link here?
Sure, I get that Mara isn’t for everyone. If you are not the kind of gamer that truly enjoys a simulation game, then you shouldn’t get it. You don’t play the game to go from A to B or to just to do all the quests. No, you do the quests to make the Home Island of Koa more beautiful, more bountiful and a real home. And meanwhile, you discover new islands, learns the story of new people and live through new adventures.
So I understand the difference in review scores, depending on your outlook on what a good game is. But this review doesn't feel fair. If you don’t want to play that game, don’t review it...
The art direction is great, it is chill, but the fetch quests are annoying and unrewarding.
Sounds like the kind of game young children would have a blast. Kids can find their reward in the most trivial ways, it's actually amazing. Long enough to last
@YvoCaro You summed up what I think: if you just hate a game, let other reviewer do the job
This review is very harsh, yes the game might not be to the reviewer’s taste but that’s not a reason to review the game with such a low score.
Summer in Mara is a chill game to take your time with, and it runs extremely well on the Switch without any glitches or crashes. Just because it isn’t a triple A title doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of playing, I totally disagree with this score!
@sanderev No, A 1/10 score should be given to unplayable games... Otherwise what leverage do you have to differentiate games that aren't unplayable?
@Yorumi hey bud, you didn’t shout enough people out.
I was looking forward to this one, because it looks really pretty and I wanted a chill game to play next. But after this very negative review, and another mediocre review I read, I unfortunately think I’ll pass.
@the_beaver I'd definitely agree with this, too. My problem as I went through this review is that I am a fan of sim type games like this, and was thoroughly disappointed at the paltry attempt made here.
I think it's important to remember that no game exists in a vacuum, and when I review games, I do so in the context of other similar games. Scores aren't standalone for me, it's a number that exists relative to what others in that area are also doing. And if the other concurrent games in the genre are of exceptionally high quality, the minimum bar is raised that much higher for newcomers.
In the case of Summer in Mara, this game aspires to be both Stardew Valley and The Legend of Zelda in its gameplay design. An ambitious and worthwhile goal, but a lofty one that only a very talented dev team could execute properly. And daring to take on such a task also means that the game invites direct comparison to stalwarts such as those games.
If, say, this game dropped most of the high seas adventure stuff and doubled down on deepening the mechanics of Koa's island, I could easily see it as having been worthy of a five or six, as it would no longer be likening itself to Zelda. It probably still wouldn't be better than Stardew Valley, but it would at least be a more focused title with some meaningful depth.
The point being, I judge a game based on what it set out to do, and how closely it reached that goal. Despite its chill vibes, Summer in Mara clearly had very ambitious aspirations. Its failure to come anywhere near them is why it was scored so low.
@Synecdoche watched switch up review and was the same comment about the drag travelling. shame as it looks and sounds great.
Oof, I was actually looking forward to this one.
@Yorumi: the review for this game reads just like NLs description in the scoring policy.... what exactly is unethical about this? lol
@SwitchVogel I appreciate the argument, and I have to agree with your point, as it´s something I´ve seen with MANY indie developers. They have REALLY ambitious goals, and something they aren´t apparently aware of is that they don´t have the resources to achieve it.
I mean: we should always try to achieve whatever we CAN actually achieve. Being aware of our limitations is key if we want to succeed. A good example of this is the case of No Man´s Sky.
With that said, I still think the review was too harsh for an indie developer... If a big company had released a game in this condition, I´d understand every critic over it, but what an indie developer has got here is important enough to consider it an accomplisment (at least to get a 5-6/10, imo, seeing other reviews of the game). And well, they can always make it better with updates and patches, same as No Man´s Sky!
@sanderev
Sorry Pal, but your scale is still bonkers. You are giving three whole points for the great achievement of not being able to get past the title screen (1/10) to not being able to play the game past the first stage because doing the main action required to progress causes a glitch (4/10). Almost a third of the whole
0-100 scale is awarded for improving a completely broken useless game into a completely useless broken game.
As I see it, if a game cant be played to the very end, then it doesn't deserve a score at all, if the game can be cleared from start to finish then we can grade it and use the whole scale from 0-100.
@SwitchVogel Thank you for the review! While people can disagree on the details of scoring, i won't. With limited time to game and limited resources to buy games, i appreciate this review. Reading your analysis and score gave me more than enough information. While the trailer looked promising, i will not waste my time and money on this game. Thank you for the review!
@Yorumi I understand that you're upset, but I'm afraid this is simply a case of our opinions diverging on the quality of this game. I don't think this is a good game. I've stated my reasons for that stance above, and you're free to argue against my points if you wish. I think it's telling, however, that the only argument you've offered for this game's quality is simply that there are other people who like it. That said, I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed this game in spite of its flaws, and I hope you continue to find enjoyment in it as you keep playing.
@the_beaver I agree that it could definitely improve with patches, but I can't review content or changes that don't exist yet. And I have to say that I disagree with using a different measuring stick for indies. For example, I would say that Stardew Valley is the ideal that all farm sim games should strive for. That game was made by one man, and he somehow managed to outdo the efforts of whole dev teams. He certainly outdid Chibig's attempt with Summer in Mara.
My point is that judging indies by a different scale dulls the accomplishments or failures of their game design. Indie games exist in the same marketplace and can be bought with the same money as AAA games, therefore they must be held to the same standard. If we just add a point or two to a game solely because a small or underfunded team made it, that passively encourages poor design and punishes good design. Low effort games receive higher scores than they should, and legitimately high scoring games are crowded by lesser titles.
To my earlier example, this separate rating system would have the effect of cheapening Eric's accomplishment with Stardew Valley. It isn't a top scoring game because he's an indie, it's top scoring because the game itself is legitimately that good. When judged alongside the Harvest Moon series that inspired it, his game still wins out. The fact that an inspired project could exceed the quality of its inspiration, to me, makes a whole world of difference.
“turns out that the entire game is predicated on this almost comical focus on wasting your time”
“You might put in that time only to realize that it actually didn’t have any importance.“
“The issue here is that the complete lack of any meaningful difficulty robs the entire experience of being anything more than a rote exercise in testing one’s patience.”
“The crops will continue to grow regardless of whether they’ve tasted a single drop of water, the quest givers will wait until the heat death of the universe for you to complete their chores”
“ keen on wasting your time with no meaningful payoff.”
Animal Crossing: New Horizons - 10/10
Oof. And I considered backing this. Glad I didn’t, I was hoping for a bit higher quality than it seems to be, like along the same level as Stardew. Gladly will pass, got more than enough on my wishlist.
Wow, this review is definitely too harsh on this game, it's never a 3/10, sorry Nintendo Life. I played it on Switch and it is so adorable. Giving this game such a low score is unjustified. Nintendo Life reviews can't be trusted anymore.
@Yorumi: my last reply on this subject. If I reviewed video games and thought a game deserves a 3, but changed it to a 5 or 6 because other people were rating it higher. That would make me a bad reviewer...
Lack of difficulty = relaxing.
@Yorumi these reviewers only bandy in extremes, they're also shameless shills
Ow, already out ?
I don't think the game was 3 from 10.
I think it is 6 from 10 for some efforts from indie game.
Who would've thought a review of this game would be so popular for comments?
What a world.
@SwitchVogel I see you've fallen into the fallacy of believing that items to be placed upon a scale can ever themselves determine that scale, and that alone would render your judgment suspect. "Not Stardew Valley" can only be an observation, never a criticism.
I think that all of you biasing NL for this review are overreacting. I'm an Italian and all the major sites in Italy would never review a game like this. Even the AMAZING Italian version of IGN (really nothing to share with the us and UK counterpart) wouldn't never look into a game like this one. You may agree or disagree with the verdict but NL is one of the few Nintendo sites that are reviewing some bad games as well. Be happy that this website is having you to save some money instead of being angry. Otherwise buy a mediocre game and be happy....
I highly recommend My Time At Portia. Played it on the PC and it looked gorgeous, was challenging and relaxing all at the same time.
@sanderev To each their own, but your Pong scale strikes me personally as quite odd.
Visual features can contribute or detract to a game's enjoyment, but sophisticated visuals don't equal enjoyment.
I mean, reviews are inherently subjective, and you're welcome to your opinion, but I can't have a review scale that ignores the player's enjoyment component. The 'wow' factor you've described seems like the fun part. I can't imagine a technically competent pong clone scoring 8+/10 without interesting gameplay or AI mechanics, in which case I don't care as much about the technical component unless it impacts negatively on playability.
Let's take Rogue Legacy as an example - 2D action platformer with a procedurally-generated castle. I had that game on my steam backlog for 2+ years before I gave it a go. Never thought it would interest me. But the core gameplay loop hooked me, HARD. Didn't put the game down for 2+ months and can still hear the creaky door sound of entering the castle when I think about it. Could the game have looked better? Sure. Would it have made it more FUN? No.
Again, I don't want to suggest your opinion is invalid, but offer a counter-point. I think most gamers play for fun - which visuals / controls / design / etc, are all in service of, and I support a review that keeps that front and center.
People upset over the low score--have you played any of this dev's other games? It's literally the same game copy/paste over and over again.
The art is always a highlight, but the game's are repetitive by design. It's like they saw star dew's success, and tried to copy it, but couldn't program as well as the one man team who made all of star dew.
This game is a waste, super dissapointed in it. It has little heart, and takes all the fun out of crafting. They made finding resources and running quests feel like work.
1/10 Gameplay
8/10 Art
@Richwalker13 Yes-- that game understood how to make farming/crafting fun.
@BenAV Zelda on the CDI is playable...so--your rating system needs work.
@JimmySpades Go outside weirdo?
@Yomerodes That's a ridiculous process for grading you have there.
Buy the game, feel the "meh" that is it's existence, then apologize to the reviewer from trying to save you money.
@Oakperson Did you reply to the wrong person or something?
I will still get it. Most of the time i don't agree with the reviews in Nintendo life plus my kid loves how it looks.
@shazbot It was just an example. My score is based on what the developer intended to make. Because otherwise only AAA high end games would get 7 or higher. Leaving all indie games out of contest.
Every start of a generation I revise my scoring policy and there are literally hundreds of small rules for a score. For instance, for an RPG to get a 9+ it's required to be free roaming, have an awesome story, great characters, good implementation of RPG elements, etc. etc.
For the next generation I will add Raytracing support / implementation to the rating system. (As long as the platform supports it)
@sanderev Sure, as I said, to each their own.
But for clarity, to you technical achievements are as, or more, important to you in your enjoyment of a (or perhaps only AAA) title than fun?
A game without raytracing (on a platform that supports it) doesn't speak to my enjoyment of the game. I have to trust the project management team to highlight features that accentuate the game's enjoyment over other features for Day 1. But for you that would be a knock because they haven't used a feature that's supported?
For me that would be too rigid of a guideline, but as reviews are inherently subjective and their outputs are necessarily qualitative, I respect, though do not agree, with the attempt to have 'quantifiability' in a review scale.
I'm playing Summer in Mara now and I like it so far. It is definitely lacking in "Nintendo polish" but it's fun. I played for an hour before I realized I could run, so that helped my enjoyment when I finally figured that out. I think this game could have been really great if it had a bigger budget or was made by a big developer, but as it is right now, I'd give it a 6 or 7 out of 10. Definitely not a 3/10 "Bad".
@Yorumi Nope, try again. The policy for 4 and 3 say nothing about requiring excessive bugs (just that bugs may be one possible reason for a 4), just that the game sucks to play. Meanwhile, a game scored as 5 is average, so anything below average must be scored lower than a 5.
5 - Average
A five is where you really need to start wondering if this game is for you. We are saying this game is average in our own subjective opinion. You have to judge for yourself if you are so attracted to this game's concept that you are going to take a chance on it anyway. We'll always give our reasons to show why the game failed to impress.
4 - Poor
A game with a four may well have some redeeming features, but we're clearly issuing caution to stay away from this game. Broken gameplay, bugs, bad control schemes, inflexible options, and repetitiveness - all these are factors which may contribute to a score of four.
3 - Bad
This is the sort of game you buy and instantly wish you didn't. The developers and publishers are probably well aware of what went wrong and are trying to put a brave face on it. Don't be fooled, accept our warning and run a mile!
Now you and @sanderev may personally think differently, but according to all the major flaws mentioned in the review (time wasting, lack of real gameplay, meaningless story, lack of difficulty and incentive), it does sound like a game most people would regret buying. At best, this particular reviewer might have considered a 4, but he/she certainly doesn't think it's an average game or better based on all the complaints (including having supposedly broken gameplay and mass repetitiveness that are mentioned in the scoring policy for a 4) that were made in the review.
Also, "Pokémon Sword and Shield" are not lazy sequels. They advance the main series into a fully 3D world, add a bunch of great new monsters and attacks (as usual), and continue to gradually include new mechanics (like Dynamaxing and the Wild Area) and QoL features without breaking the core mechanics that make the main series work. They did get a little lazy in a few areas, but that's why it only got an 8 instead of a 9 or 10.
@YvoCaro Ah, now this is a problem with the review. It seems to miss the point that this is first and foremost a simulation game with the fetch quests only serving as a means towards that end. The simulation aspects are barely mentioned at all in the review, thereby misrepresenting the game's true genre. The amount of time wasted on sailing still sounds like a major flaw, and I don't like simulation games so it still sounds boring as heck to me, but this does explain why this review is so much more negative than most of the others.
@sanderev A great RPG is not required to be free roaming. Many RPG fans (including myself) prefer more linear JRPGs over open world WRPGs.
There are plenty of indie games that are just as good as many AAA games (save for amount of content in many cases which is already reflected in the price differences), and they are reviewed and scored as such.
Also, intentions mean squat if those intentions are to use broken and/or archaic gameplay elements, a bad UI, and/or a presentation style that the majority find to be ugly. A developer can execute his/her vision perfectly, but if that vision still results in a bad game according to some reviewers, then it deserves bad reviews from them.
Weird. I grabbed it and played for 2 hours so far and I friggin love it.
In the conclusion you say to play BOTW or Minecraft. The thing is I have, and I don’t want to play them again (yet). I don’t find it too similar to either. It feels like a 3D stardew valley done right. I have personal gripes with stardew as I find it too difficult to just sit back and relax with. There’s too much stress in getting everything right in that game and if you’re new you don’t know how to get it right. However Mara doesn’t do that.
Nope. It’s too early to give any conclusions but I’ve had the opposite reaction to what your review gave. As I said I’m finding it fun, lovely, some of the catchiest music I’ve heard in a long while. And with that Animal Crossing no-stress vibe attached. Like, there are challenges but you don’t have to “get your farm perfect to survive winter!” Style dealio.
Nope. I adore this so far. I hope it continues on this trajectory.
I'm giving this game a chance, it doesn't look like it's deserving of the 3/10 score.
@Oakperson So I'm weird for having a thought and expressing it? Finding thought weird is the truly weird thing. Use your brain.
@sanderev: Props for actually showing me your entire review score table. It’s seems very technical though... reviews should be based more on enjoyment and how much you get out of the experience. All those things are important too and should help the score but not be the determining factor.
@Yorumi,
Yeah, you are right. I won't write it of just yet. Might still be worth it someday, at a discount.
@Yorumi: I whole heartedly disagree. I for one want a reviewers most honest opinion of the game. I don’t want their opinion jaded in any way by other opinions. That way I can take an “average” of all those opinions for a definitive score. This reviewer clearly did not enjoy playing as much as the people who gave it a 5 - 7 (Opinions are always going to defer). This is why you never base your purchase on one single review.
If he had scored it a 1/10 I’d be right there with you yelling at him. 3 may be slightly harsh but I’m sure someone else over scored it a little. Relax man
NL keep reviewing the way you are and never feel pressured to give a higher/lower score than what you believe, just to try and align with norms.
I did think this looked pretty but bland when I seen the trailer.
@Yorumi: It almost sounds like we are looking for different things in our reviews, we could go back and forth on this all day.
His reasons for not liking it seemed valid and not just personal. You should never give a game a 5 or 6 if you had 0 fun with it. Regardless of how good it looks and how much effort was put in. At the end of the day, we play these for fun right?
Side note: I get that some reviewers aren’t meant to review some games. I should never review a serious sports game since I hate them. The reviewer in this case was part of the target audience from what I gather so he’s completely entitled to his opinion of the game.
@SwitchVogel This review is bad, and you should feel bad.
The review of this game pretty much sums up my feelings about Animal Crossing...
@sanderev glad you like it. But I think if the majority of quests consists of fetch quests, a game can get a low score for that. It's just lazy.
And it's not just Nintendo life that criticized the game for that.
@gockel123 Animal Crossing is basically also just a fetch quest. So why is that a 10/10 and this a 3/10. I don't get it.
I 100% disagree with a 3/10 for this game.
@BulbasaurusRex A great RPG isn't required to be open world indeed, but an awesome RPG should be at least semi open world or full open world. (great is the 8-8.9 range, awesome the 9.00/9.999 range) and I haven't rated a closed of (linear) RPG above a 8.9 since the GameCube era.
@ShadowSniper7 I am a very technical person. However the amount of enjoyment is also measured for the score. It simply does not affect the major score, it can be the difference between an 8.0 and an 8.9 if needed.
@sanderev: Implying that this game deserves the same score (or similar) as Animal Crossing New Horizons is just about the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. And I’ve heard some things lol
@ShadowSniper7 I'm not implying that. However "the game has fetch quests" should not be a reason to give the game a 3.
@sanderev Some of the best games I've ever played were buggy messes, your scoring system sucks. Also BOTW was maybe a 7.5/10, it was a lesser Zelda game. Not enough dungeons or bosses, and the puzzles were too easy.
@the_beaver it’s not great... I’ve been playing it for maybe a few hours and already found several bad glitches- and at one point it actually crashed my switch so badly that no buttons were responding (even on shut off) and I had to do a power cycle to fix it. The game itself isn’t bad (a lot of fetch quest-y stuff, and not very well done. I wish if you already had the stuff it would automatically continue) but hard to enjoy when it isn’t working correctly, a game with huge flaws like that shouldn’t even get ON the switch store.
Perhaps it’s a lot better on PC?
@sanderev @Benjamillion I’ve been playing summer in Mara on switch and have had glitches that literally crash my switch- doesn’t that make it like a 4 even on your scale?
@Justhere That's why you wait for the patches.
@Justhere I haven't had any crashes of glitches.
This horrible rating almost put me off this game! It's such a shame that this review and rating shows immediately after googling the title
I am really enjoying it and I am so happy that I bought it. There is not many as wholesome games like this. Although it's not perfect in any way, this is definitely not a game that deserves 3/10. If the reviewer really didn't like it, the lowest acceptable rating is like 5/10. Lower that that is just unnecessarily hurting the renome of the game and off putting the developers to continue updating it.
Yes, reviews are totally subjective. But the reviewer has to be aware of the responsibility that he helps to make the decision of other players. If this was a review on his personal blog, than ok. But a review for Nintendo Life? It should really take into account all the players that might like it and mention and appreciate the good about the game same as the bad.
@sanderev that doesn’t mean they don’t happen though 🤷🏼♀️ I also think the game is kind of boring and repetitive too
That's really sad, was looking forward to this one.
What a garbage game 2/10 is a good scoore for this.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...