“Jump and whip your way through this epic adventure,” begins the opening blurb for the Whipseey and the Lost Atlas listing on the Nintendo eShop. It undoubtedly does feature jumping, yes, and there’s certainly a decent amount of whipping to be found, but calling it epic is a bit of a stretch; we’ve had hiccuping spells that have lasted longer.
You play as Drew, a young lad who finds himself in Whipseeyland where he’s transformed into a pink blob. He has to find the magical orbs that will help transform him back into a human and go back home. Within seconds of starting the game, it’s pretty clear where Whipseey’s main influence lies: this is very much an adventure that’s inspired by the early Kirby games, given its retro-style visuals, cheery chiptune music and the small matter of the hero being a pink blob.
Rather than having Kirby’s swallowing and floating abilities, however, Whipseey is instead armed with a magical whip that can not only attack enemies but also be used to hook onto parts of the scenery to swing across gaps, or spun like a helicopter blade to help you fall slower. It’s a basic but fun mechanic and for a while, the game is extremely enjoyable; gleefully strolling through each stage is a treat and while it may look like the Kirby games, it certainly isn’t as easy. There are some tricky moments to be found here and the boss fights can put up a bit of a challenge until you learn the patterns.
It’s a great start, but around 45 minutes into the game we reached a cutscene where Whipseey turned back into a boy. “Well, that’s an interesting twist,” we thought. Turns out it was a very interesting twist: we’d finished it. We quickly checked our game save and, sure enough, 100% completion. This is no word of a lie: this game has a total of five stages and takes less than an hour to beat. The argument could be that it’s only £4.99, but there are free demos out there that offer more gameplay than this.
On paper Whipseey is a lovely tribute to the days of the Kirby games, but when the entire game is shorter than just the first world of Kirby's Adventure – which is already available as part of the Switch Online NES collection – we just can't recommend you spend your money on it. If this was a free demo teasing a full adventure we'd be demanding you play it, but if this is really all there is that's incredibly poor.
Comments 77
I'm all for games that are short and sweet but this just sounds like a complete lack of content. No thanks.
'Kirby’s swallowing and floating abilities' he's very popular in Japan.
That's disappointing, but now a days we get games like Dauntless for free. Sounds like this might just be a fun passion project. Hopefully we see more from the developers going forward.
It looks more like a wigglytuff gone rogue.
Doesn't this need one of those new 'Mini Review' tags?
@Xelha It wasn't marked down for that. The pluses and minuses are just that: they sum up the game's good and bad points. As the review itself makes clear, it was marked down for being shorter than Donald Duck's temper. If it was 60 it would've still been a 4.
Lol @ review score... 30fps a minus. Most of the time we hardly see them complaining during reviews. Now a simple game like this gets an other slash to attack. We have also other 2D running 30fps and those didn't get negative review from that part... so what's up reviewers? You can't think other negative points??? Is that now a must? 3 positive and 3 negative? Can't take this site that serious anymore due the review scores
@Xelha Exactly mate! This is what I mean. Handshake!
@Alucard83 The plus and minus points are just little summaries to point out notable aspects of the game. The actual review itself is the bit that explains why the game got the score it did. When the game takes 45 minutes to complete, I worry that focusing on the fact I mentioned its frame rate is perhaps like criticising someone's choice of shoes while they're mugging you.
So disappointing. I was excited for the possibility. I may still get it but I was hoping for 3-4 hours of game.
Ah, that's unfortunate. Any game that's less than an hour long is really a no-go for me unless it's free or near to. The fact that this really basic looking 2D platformer can't even hit 60fps is just the cherry on top.
Ugh...first they had these crappy games being flogged in the 3DS eShop and now on the Switch. Overpriced, underwhelming, and barely value for money. Anything that can get completed in less than an hour gets owned by even a mobile app game. And the rip-off Kirby factor shows dated naivety.
I'm into games being short. I'll give this a look.
"It took longer to write this review than beat it"
Funniest negative ever.
You kept saying it's like Kirby but didn't realize that the first Kirby game (Kirby's Dream Land) only had 5 stages as well? Have you ever thought it was inspired more by Kirby's Dream Land and not Kirby's Adventure? Sure it's a bit short and maybe sweet game but these are the type of game that I like to call, time killers meaning you could always go back to play them if you need to kill time. These aren't made for full fledge playthrough.
"...but there are free demos out there that offer more gameplay than this." And DQXIS demo certainly sets the bar high.
@CooperFrank There are full priced games shorter than that demo.
Why should a 5$ game, which is longer than the first Kirby game, be marked down as a 4? The length of the game should fit the price, and from what I have played in my review copy the game is well worth the 5$ price tag in terms of length. The levels in the game are lengthy and challenging, feeling very much like Megaman levels in how they are presented.
@sanderev Oh yes, of course, and this isn't much great.
Basically the reviewer decided to give it a 4 because it's short. I'll not consider the 30fps minus. According to the review (the text itself), I don't get why people who are into classic 2d platformers wouldn't have fun with this little game, even if it's only for an hour
@John_Deacon It's a fun time, plus within that hour is some pretty nice variety in content. Every level looks unique, with different varieties of enemies and obstacles, as well as a boss fight at the end of each level. Plus the game also has some good difficulty to it. Live's actually mattered, and if you lose all of them you'll have to restart the level, and each level is on par with the length of a Megaman level.
@Xelha The difference is that Fire Emblem isn't a game that necessarily benefits greatly from 60fps, whereas this is clearly based on 8-bit and 16-bit platformers, the vast majority of which were 60fps (and those that weren't were due to a lack of power, something that shouldn't be an issue here).
Is it really necessary to discuss the frame rate for every single game?
@Dogtanian
This is a reasonably simple looking game, seeing it run at a locked 30 frames per second is strange as games like this have an expectation for a solid 60 fps.
I guess I'm generous. I gave it a 6. It's certainly not a "poor" game. It's short so it's poor? lol. I can't argue that its length and lack of depth in levels had me wanting more, but the controls are good and I can't argue against it being $6.
Also, it takes more of a Mr. Gimmick clone than Kirby.
That's a shame. I hugely enjoy Kirby games despite them being really easy and had my eye on this but if it's over in 45 minutes with 100% completion and has no replay value (Even Kirby's Dream Land has an unlockable Hard mode and then allows you to adjust lives and energy to ramp the challenge up more) then I don't really want to spend cash on it
@TromaDogg I wouldn't even play it for free. You know some games can't be recreated by others aka Kirby
Wow it lasted longer than my marriage
Uh... World Record for the completing the original Kirby's Dreamland for Game Boy is 10 minutes 47 seconds. Just saying.
@Mechageo It's also 27 years old. I don't think it's unfair to expect more from something released in 2019. Plenty of other retro-style games are a decent size.
HAL BOXBOY games are each $5 (barring the $10 Switch one with multiplayer) and last a good 8+ hours each. Granted, they're a different genre, but still.
"Cons: Only runs at 30fps" you guys have got to be joking, not every game will be 60fps, get over it
...I mean, the original Kirby game was also very short, so....
Kirby’s Dream Land is only 15 minutes long and still a classic. $5.99 for 45 minutes doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me if the game is fun, which it sounds like it is. KDL cost $30 at retail and $3.99 on the eShop so it still sounds like this offers a better bang for your buck...
30fps in a 3rd person game, with the motion blur to mask it, is acceptable. But 30fps in a 2D platformer? Come on now, that is a negative. 2D platforming is all about precise jumping and fluid control.
Imagine playing the likes of the Contra series in 30fps, it'd be hell! More so than it already is at 60fps!
@scully1888 Did you finish this on your first go? (Honest question). I don't mind games I can finish in 40 mins (lord knows that's most for me lol) but usually, it's after playing it loads. This game sounds like it's had it's meat mechanically recovered and sold in tins!
Lots of people defending this game for some reason. It looks distressingly simple and average, with no gameplay evolution throughout the 45 minute runtime. Sprites are clearly 'inspired by' better - known games. I'd spend my $5 elsewhere
@Stargazer It seems like some people are highly defensive of these 2D indie pixel platformers no matter how bad and uninspired they are. Says everything really.
@GrailUK Yup. Put my daughter down for her nap, decided to get started on it, ended up finishing it before she woke up.
@JayJ
Weird how we seem to have swung from everyone bashing generic, low-effort 2D indie platformers to folks defending them. It's almost like they just want to argue and be contrarian for no good reason
@Stargazer Yeah you see a lot of people doing that sorta thing on gaming sites these days, it can get really annoying but I just ignore the people who are always trying to argue with everyone. As for this, it just doesn't surprise me the least because I have been seeing this mentality of 2D platforming + pixel graphics = good video game. No matter how bad the game actually is, as demonstrated here, and this has been going on for a long time. It is just more obvious now because this game is clearly quite bad.
@scully1888 Honestly just wanted to say thanks for the way you have been approaching this game, it can get frustrating seeing people acting like our standards shouldn't have changed since the NES/GB era and I think you get it.
@Mechageo aside from the fact that that game is very old (as @scully1888 mentioned), your comment doesn’t make any sense: since when a WORLD RECORD is indicative of a game’s duration?
We’re talking about a few people in the world capable of completing a game in a similar time span.
My roommate can complete SMB in a minute, ok, but that doesn’t mean everyone can.
I feel stupid at the thought of even having to state it openly 😑
@AndrewJ Reviews are just opinions and it sounds like you are trying to push a certain mentality upon everyone who might review a video game. You should just try to relax and realize how not everyone looks for the same things in video games. While some people love these games others don't. There are no shortage of reviews around here where I find myself disagreeing with the critic for my own reasons but that is what these comments are for, we can voice our feelings about the material but that doesn't mean we need to attack the critic for stating their perspective.
@AndrewJ You've already answered your own question. I didn't review Minit, and have never played it, so it would be ridiculous of me to try to compare the game I'm reviewing with one I haven't played: that's just asking for mistakes.
Regardless, the Minit review actually states that it's 2-4 hours, not "under 2 hours". If it was 4 hours, that means it's more than five times longer than Whipseey, so even if I did compare the two Minit clearly offers more.
@AndrewJ It sounds like you have been twisting things around your own outlook, while that is fine for you that isn't necessarily what everyone is going to get out of this. For example I took that criticism over length as a valid reason for saying it's a bad game, especially when combined with the other criticisms present in this review.
@AndrewJ Well it sounded like you have been throwing accusations around with all sorts of arguments but whatever, I didn't come here to argue.
@AndrewJ Mate, with respect, the game's about a boy who's been turned into a blob and wants to turn into a human and get back home. I don't think it takes the Wachowskis to figure out how it ends.
@AndrewJ Your problem is how you are being very passive aggressive. You see no problem with your continued accusations that you throw around, you only see a problem when someone actually responds to it.
@AndrewJ So you get angry when someone calls out your passive aggressive approach to conflict and the last thing you do is the most passive aggressive thing you could do.
@AndrewJ Throwing an attack at someone and then trying to run away/deflect before they can respond makes you the poster boy of passive aggression.
I'm sorry but something just seems off with scoring a game so low for this particular issue, because such a low score gives the impression the game itself is actually bad, but it apparently isn't.
It sounds like a pretty solid but short game based on the text in your review, and a 4/10 just does not reflect that in any capacity imo.
Maybe we really need to get back to breaking review scores down and then giving a final average, so people can see all the strengths and weaknesses in each area of the game at a glance and then also what dragged the overall score down if it did. Also, I think it could even show that maybe your "average" in a case like the one above is rather unfairly skewed, I would think.
Something like this would be nice to see in terms of reviews these days imo: http://www.meanmachinesmag.co.uk/pdf/gleylancermd.pdf
I mean, seriously, what would you give the game out of ten for:
Presentation
Graphics
Sound
Playability
Lastability
?
Let's just see if it actually averages out "Overall" at a roughly 4/10 game. . . .
Second day in a row here that people are fighting over reviews. Does it have to be that way?
Lol, the readers here got used to the 9 outta 10 instaclassic reviews for every indie game on NintendoLife.
Beating a game in under one hour is just bad. Especially 100%.
It's a 2D 8bit style platform game, how much time could it take to create some more stages? There is no excuse for something like that. A 4 is generous
Holy cow! A mention of a game running at 30fps made it into the big lettered bullet points! Yay, thank you for making it so easy to know the frame rate of this Switch game! As a side note, I would probably get a game like this, even being a short game, if it was fun and ran at 60fps. I love awesome short games!
@AndrewJ You are seriously going to resort to name calling now? I mean seriously, everyone who doesn't do exactly what you want them to do is a troll now? Grow up.
@impurekind The problem is that, as magazines like Mean Machines even went to great pains to point out back then, the overall score there isn't an average. If you take the example review you linked to, the game was given an 'overall' score of 48% but the actual average was 63%.
The reason for this is simple: the elements of a game are not all as important as each other. The example review you linked to gave the game 92% for presentation and 70% for graphics, but gave it 45% for 'lastability' because "it shouldn't take more than a day or two to complete". As a result the final score was much lower than the actual average would have been because it doesn't matter how good the game looks if it's too easy to beat.
Long story short, by linking to an old '90s article and saying "this is how it should be done" you've unwittingly proved that this is exactly how I do it.
There's a lot of lastworditis going around here lately.
This place just ain't fun anymore.
This is one of the weirdest things I've seen. I don't necessarily disagree with the logic, but its like...how much does quantity matter? Like would you rather play a mediocre game for 10 hours than a pretty great one for 1? The answer for some people will be no, but for a lot of people, especially ones with limited spending money, the answer will absolutely be yes.
I think the problem here, is the developers should've either charged less or just spent some more time to put more game into their game, if their game to succeed. I don't feel like nearly any game this short is gonna satisfy people, especially since indie games are mostly bought by hardcore gamers.
haha, baffled by the comments here. In my mind a perfect mini-review as it informs me that personally I won't bother playing the game but it may be fine for some who are after a short experience with great presentation. If it had scored a 6 or 7 people would just say they will give it a miss due to backlog, but because it scores 4 they fell a need to defend it? Strange world, maybe just ignore the score and read the words. Ahh crap, the time time it took to type this I could have played 1/1000000th of the DQXI demo for free
@impurekind side-note but interesting you use that example as from memory (sketchy) Nintendo Life started out from that very website which solely focused on Virtual Console reviews before release of Wii.
The only mascot character that could match the cuteness of Kirby is Starfy and its made by Nintendo themselves.
@scully1888 It doesn't matter that it's not an exact average; the point is still exactly the same: Your score makes this game look total sh*t when very clearly it is not, at least based on the text in your review, and that is extremely unfair to the developer imo--because we all know a large number of people are gonna see that score and the minimal "Joys" and "cons" and dismiss the game immediately.
So, to the point again: Maybe it would actually be more useful to your readers to breakdown all the elements of the game and show them clearly that in this case it's one thing where the game is weak but every other area seems to be pretty solid, which is exactly what that Mean Machines review I linked to did so much better (and that game didn't exactly score stellar in terms of Gameplay either, on top of the low Lastability score, so a lower Overall score makes more sense there too, as, like you said, some things are more important that others).
And, yeah, we all know, we should read the full review text, blah, blah, blah. Back to reality. . . .
As far as I'm concerned these old magazines like Mean Machines did their reviews better all round, with multiple people writing on each review so we get different points of view, far more screenshots and cool artwork, easier score breakdowns, usually more useful details about each game, almost always more fun and humour in the reviews, etc--far better. So if you guys could combine the strengths of the old, such as the more detailed and useful score breakdowns, with the advantages of the new digital media, such as being able to add some actual gameplay footage--which, ironically, you guys don't even included that in your digital online reviews anyway--then it would be the best of all worlds.
Right now something is slightly off with some of these Nintendo Life reviews imo (which is also true of many other modern online gaming sites too), mostly due to the more basic and generic way they are done now, and I think the review above demonstrates that perfectly. So, I think a little change, at least some tweaking here and there to how the scores are broken down, would almost certainly be a good thing. . . .
Just saying.
@impurekind With respect, a lot of things about scores and format are set by the publication, not the author. The author doesn't use review scores on their own website, but they do here because that's what the publication asks.
Also, games are inherently holistic - looking at each component of the game in turn doesn't fully represent the game as a whole. If there's some big issue with the game (say, being very short) that drags down the rest of the game, then simply taking an average of various scales isn't appropriate, since it implies all parts of a game are equally important.
On the whole, the review reflects that, while the game itself is quite solid, it's simply too short to justify its asking price. The expectations of a game that costs £1 and a game that costs £50 are rather different, after all.
Sounds like they should have released it for free to gain notoriety before releasing a full, commercial game. It's not unheard of! Original Spelunky and Cave Story were freeware.
With a price tag this game is going to leave a bad taste behind.
The text of the review reads like the game was good fun. A 4/10 says the game was rubbish.
I can rate my own personal cost:time metric myself, as it’s different for everyone, so I’d rather a review told me if the game was worth playing.
I also agree with many comments that the 30fps ‘con’ seemed out of place. You’d have been better telling us how many frames per completion of game
It's probably worth closer to $2 than $6, but its short length shouldn't be enough to mark it all the way down to a 4! It sounds like a game that would normally score an 8 but then knocked down to a 6 for lack of content. Add to future Wishlist...
@Stargazer Who cares if the sprites are inspired by a better game as long as they still look good (as they do)? These graphics are still way better than the ugly 8-bit inspired indie games out there. These guys at least went with a proper 16-bit style.
@zellisgoatbond Yeah, the suggestion is to Nintendo Life rather than the author. It's just this particular review that flagged an issue again that I've seen a few times now.
Well this is why you have an Overall score at the end (which doesn't have to be a perfect "average" but a more holistic total taking into account various weightings). But breaking down the elements that make up a game (or a movie or whatever) is something that's happened since the beginning of time and just makes good sense. You can totally look at each individual part even though they combine to make a whole. And as mentioned, the "average" doesn't have to been a mathematically perfect average but more a rough coming together of the various scores to give an Overall rating that balances them sensibly. You get that final score too but you understand better how it all "adds up".
Whatever the review is supposed to reflect, that score just makes the game look pretty terrible imo, as in that's what I believe most people will take away from the review, and that's actually not true of the game being reviewed hear at all. A short game does not equal a bad game at all, just a short game. And, even though it's easy to say "you should read the full review text for more context" or whatever, I think making the final scoring system in its own right better indicate the actual truth of the game is still just as important.
A 4/10 just does not say "A really solid game but too short"; a 4/10 says "avoid this pile of **** like the plague!"
I think we all know that's probably the truth of what most people will take away from it, because we all know most people rarely bother to read full reviews in this day and age, even ones that are literally only a few paragraphs long.
That's the problem with a scoring system that's so basic and doesn't break down anything further for you (and reviews that go into very little detail beyond the broad strokes, show a handful of screenshots and no footage at all)--so I return to my original point.
Also, I know everyone keeps going on about how short this game is--but it's only frkin' 5 squid. Not 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10, just 5. And yes, we've all been spoiled on cheap-free mobile games, and the digital stores on consoles/PCs are similarly spoiling us now too with hundreds of dirt-cheap indie titles too, but it's not like 5 squid is a fortune, and if it's 45 minutes of good fun then it's not that BAD. I mean, seriously, a 4/10 basically indicates BAD by most metrics.
I mean I don't know how Nintendo Life specifically defines a 4/10 game, but look at what IGN defines it as:
"For one reason or another, these games made us wish we’d never played them. Even if there’s a good idea or two in there somewhere, they’re buried under so many bad ones and poor execution we simply can’t recommend you waste your time on it."
Is this game really BAD, or is this game good but just SHORT. . . .
So, one more time, I go back to my original point about how review scoring is handled and how maybe it could and should be approached slightly differently if we want it to be truly fair and reflective. . . .
@impurekind At the end of the day, the review itself explains why I ended up at the score I did. All this convoluted explaining of how they used to do it in the old days (which I'm well versed in: it was Mean Machines etc that encouraged me to be a games journalist in the first pace) and suggesting we do it their way is frankly undermining the actual written review.
The aim of a review isn't to come up with a number that makes people happy: it's to have them coming away from it, having read it fully, knowing whether it sounds like the sort of game they want to buy. In that respect, I'm happy with what I wrote.
@scully1888 Yes, "read the review text; it's the readers fault for being lazy and not bothering to read the full review text"--that's not me claiming this is EXACTLY what you said but rather the gist of it imo--is probably a great way to approach things.
Personally, if I had any say I'd rather change the review scoring system to something better--and, yes, I mean better when I say better.
But, hey, I don't run the site; I'm just a visitor and reader of the site.
Imo it's much better than Kirby. Ok it's very short, but I had a lot of fun and it didn't bores me to death because of a low difficulty.
@scully1888 I would love to know when the review embargo lifted for this game. My guess is the publisher tried to pull a swifty by lifting it very close to release hoping for a few very positive first reviews based on some lazy 30 min playthrus. Probs just me being cynical though!
@Monmoya Whipseey fits into our range where games are usually $5.99 USD for 1-2 hours of gameplay, $9.99 USD up to 4 hours, $14.99 USD for longer single player games with no extra features, $19.99 USD with online features, $24.99 and above for larger games. General playtime for Whipseey should be over 1 hour, the reviewer is a speed player for sure with great skills! I hope that clears things up.
That's far to short.
I wont complete it in an hour. Its not that easy. Its a memorization thing. You die a lot first.
@impurekind this is actually perfectly put. I used to be an avid visitor of IGN. I knew the staff by name, got excited when I saw a review by my favorite member etc. Likewise I used to read CVG, the magazine, back in the day and each month was so damn exciting. The effort put in back then was stellar, and it showed in every word and article.
Nowadays it's all just so impersonal and generic. I think generic is a really good way to describe it. And you'd think in a way that with the internet and such ready access there would be even more quality content when it comes to game coverage, but sadly it's not the case. It's all more rushed and sub par in these overcrowded times. It's probably only going to get worse, unfortunately. In the last few years I've been slowly moving away from reviews, and damn it feels good. With YouTube now it takes no time at all to watch some gameplay videos to see if a game interests you. Or sometimes it's good to go in blind, like the old days when you'd go to the store with your own money and just take a chance.
I get that that's not an option today really, and people should rightfully be careful with their money. But I'd rather spend my time playing games rather than worrying too much about the coverage and reviews at this stage. If I have to I might read a round up to get the general consensus, but at the end of the day it's my choice.
I don't see games journalism bouncing back from the internet unfortunately, and it's a shame. At least the games will stick around ha 😅
EDIT: Spelling
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...