In the absence of Minecraft on Nintendo platforms, many developers have opted to try to recapture the legendary game's magical gameplay in their own knockoff attempts. These have, by and large, fallen short of the high standard that's been set and failed to present any meaningful contributions to the popular formula. Stone Shire is a perfect example of this, presenting an extremely barebones, unimpressive sandbox-style experience. While it's not entirely irredeemable, a plethora of technical or gameplay shortcomings drag down the whole experience.
Upon booting up and opening a new save, there are three biomes that can be used for building the randomly-generated world: Grassland, Tundra, and Desert. While these do present decently diverse environments, there isn't really any difference between the three aside from the cosmetic and thematic changes. After a considerable amount of time is taken loading the world, you're immediately faced with arguably the biggest of Stone Shire's many flaws: the draw distance. It's unfortunately not an exaggeration to say that the considerable presence of gray fog brings to mind early N64 games - and not in a good way, either. Taking into account that part of the appeal of this type of game is to evoke a feeling of adventure by standing atop a hill and looking out across a vast and unexplored expanse, it's rather deflating that all that's visible here is ugly fog and a sparse collection of trees or hills within the short field of vision.
It's not like the fog is obscuring a considerable expanse, either; the whole map can be traversed in a couple minutes. Along the way, there are no other races, animals, or enemies of any kind, making the world feel hollow and lifeless. Combining this with the fact that there's no health system, hunger system or danger of any kind, one would think that this is primarily meant to be a 'Creative' type game as opposed to 'Survival'. However, there's no option to fly or to use an infinite number of materials, making a sort of hybrid of the two game types that drops the benefits of both. There's nothing to actually struggle against to survive, and building large structures is a tedious process when supplies are constantly running out.
Gameplay has glimpses of potential, but ultimately follows the presentation in delivering a half-baked product. The idea of allowing the player to dual-wield is novel, but there's not a ton to actually wield. Pickaxes and blocks of mined materials are the only things that can be crafted, making the crafting system seem like an afterthought. There are no weapons or armour sets to make as there's nothing to fight, and tools such as axes and shovels are mysteriously absent. On top of this, the pickaxes have an infinite number of uses, meaning that only one of each ore tier needs to be made.
Conclusion
The absence of features such as an acceptable draw distance, NPCs, a useful crafting system - and much more besides - makes Stone Shire feel like a rushed and unfinished demo of a better game. While the developers have made big promises for what'll be added in future updates, the game that's live on the eShop today is a proof-of-concept at best. Some may have fun chopping down trees with pickaxes and throwing together structures with the limited number of blocks, but this is really a title that can only be recommended to the most blindly devoted fans of this genre.
Comments 46
... move along, move long. This isn't the Minecraft solution for Wii U you were looking for. Move along.
nope, nope, nope and No,
(please don't disappoint me Ucraft)
It looks like a pre-alpha game, just to show off the concept.
The one thing i dont get:
Minecraft itself is a rather barren baseline to go by (minues some more complicated stuff like Redstone) and these Indie devs trying to copy that are in direct competition with each other, knowing how their competitor product looks, plays and what it will feature.
So one would think that; "Copy Minecraft - Bank on features others dont offer" would be the natural M.O here to stay relevant,
Why is it, that some Indie devs think that something that is even simpler then Minecrafts Alpha would peak any interest at all ?
It doesnt fill the Minecraft gap, nor is it capable to compete with its direct competitors who also made "post release content update" promises, but also feature far more in their vanilla state ?
Also, seing how insanely creative Minecrafts modding community can get, that "just copying Minecraft" wouldnt be enough at all, as the base game at this point, is nothing more then a necessety to install mods for it.
Why not start at this angle ? Why not create something a little more unique like "This will be a farming simulator, concentrating on farming aspects with Minecraft-esque mechanics around it" then to recreate Minecrafts core mechanics, that most people dont even find all that interesting anymore...
Oh well...far too much text and rambling for this, i definitly need some sleep
Cube Creator is enough for me, I guess.
So how many Minecraft clones are there coming to the E shop? These is this one, ucraft, and cube creator. Any others?
@Mrclaycoat cube creator is for the 3DS, along with battle miner those are all the Minecraft clones there.
In the WiiU, there's this one, Ucraft and I think @Cypronia was also developing one?
@Einherjar I think the biggest issue is that the more complex features take an awful lot more time on top of what is an already considerable task of creating the game to begin with.
Smaller devs don't have the time/technical know how to produce these additional bits.
@Mrclaycoat Cube Life
I'll be taking some screenshots on Miiverse later today. The screens that we have are of what the game might look like after a few updates, but not the game that's downloadable today.
Not a finished game, F/10.
Didn't hear about this until now...guess that was a good thing, sticking with the 3DS games.
@MrWalkieTalkie that's the one! Thanks. I've never played Minecraft but really want to sink my teeth into it or something similar. Gonna wait to see what this and U craft look like before settling on Minecraft for I Pad since the Wii U is my only current console
@Morpheel Yes, the name of the game is Cube Life: Island Survival and it will be released in North America on June 4th!
We think there is everything you are expecting from a block building survival game. Here is the list of game features:
the price is $6.99 ONLY
Currently we are working on Multiplayer, which will be distributed as an game update.
@Cypronia sounds nice! I think the only thing I don't like is that the characters look exactly like Minecraft characters. I think it would've be better if you had used something a bit more unique.
@Cypronia No offence, and not that I'm a part of the NLife staff or anything, but is this kind of advertising / campaigning proper and within the community rules?
@Moshugan Not sure, technically, but he was responding to a direct question from a commenter here. I would love it if more developers directly communicated with commenters more often, wouldn't you?
Until we get the definitive Minecraft experience on Nintendo consoles these would never go away
@Moshugan We have just answered the direct question from Morpheel and provided detailed info. We hope it is not against community rules...
I agree completely with @aaronsullivan I think its AWESOME that a developer would take interest in and be part of a community as well as respond with others in the community in my opinion if there are community rules against this then that is just stupid .
I agree.
@Cypronia i may, i mean support your game and buy it. i have cube creator 3d which is a far better game than i imagine though it could use some more work. at the price you said it looks like it would be worth my money and i will also support ucraft if the game ends up better than our expectation (i will still buy it out of curiosity). i will say this, your game looks as close to MC with some mods which is a good thing.
@Cypronia Sounds like you've got the right idea!
When Notch takes years to build content and roll out updates, it is cool. When a Nindie does it, it is not so much.
I swear. This site has such a hard-on against the smaller Nindies that it is laughingly embarrassing. There is some constructive criticism in this review, but you proceed to give the game a low score when it is promising future content.
If only you could understand how hard it can be to be a Nindie with a limited budget. People put out the best games that they can with the hope that they can make better games with more money. Very few people understand how hard game dev can be, especially for a console. If you continue to piss on smaller teams then you will chase out many indies and AAA and larger studios will be all that remain. Potentially good companies will be shot down in their infancy before they have a chance to evolve.
For example, early- to mid-1980's Nintendo might not make it in this market. Their games were smaller, but they had to learn the technology and gain money to make more ambitious projects. If they were shot down before acquiring this goal then we would not have the Nintendo we have today. Many smaller Nindies are in the same boat as Nintendo was in that day and their work should be judged for what it is.
In this particular example, it is a Minecraft game that promises to grow. The developer openly admits it is in its infancy. And yet you are comparing it to a full AAA product. Allow it to grow and become what it is. If people are prematurely chased away, it might not become that. Perhaps some people need to pay money for what is there so the developer can continue to develop it. Again, just like Notch did.
These are my thoughts. I will probably be ridiculed. I am a Nindie myself, but have no connection to the developer. I think this site can extend a little more compassion to Nindies and not constantly compare them to games with bigger budgets. When a site is consistently handing out ones and threes to Nindies and giving away their review codes in contests then I take issue. You are being mean at that point.
At any rate, I think this is much nicer than anything written by HylianJowie. I just think you should check your bias.
@Drumpler I understand where you're coming from and I agree. I've checked out their blog and if the developers promises are to be taken at face value, this game has a very bright future indeed. However, I judged this game based off of what it is now, not what it will be.
Personally, I think it would've been more to the developer's benefit to hold off a release for a few months to make sure all the promised features would be there day 1. The game they put up on the eShop feels unfinished, it's as simple as that.
@Cypronia Sounds excellent! You certainly have my business, pal.
NIce attempt but this game needed more content before being released. I'm looking forward to the progression of this product.
That is a pretty terrible draw distance for a Wii U game.
@Drumpler It really looks like Stone Shire developer or close person wrote this
Btw, we are a Nindie developer too. Few years ago, some of our games got really low score, we had same feelings like you, we tried to defend us. But it was useless. It is better to put that energy to make better games. Do not take criticism to take you down... analyze it, because it can help to move forward.
The site is NOT against the small Nindies. We are Nindie, too. The site is here for Nintendo players. They pay money for good games. It is fair to point out (like reviewer did) that this game is currently not worth of that price because it is a rushed and unfinished demo. You created it, published it, asking $7.99 for it. Honestly, we 100% agree with the review, that Stone Shire is currently a tech demo. You would do better to release it for free, at this stage as it is.
We could do the same and we could release Cube Life in November when we had the same level of content as you have right now. But it would be not fair to ask $6.99 and make promises, we will include this and that later... please wait 6 months.
So, we have worked hard, included a LOT of content and going to release it next week. Our standard retail price is $14.99. BUT, we know that there are still many features we can implement, so we rather ask $6.99 now, and raise the price when extra features like multiplayer, sharing maps, and more is done.
We really wish you good luck and lot of energy finishing your game.
@Cypronia are there any plans for a uk/eu release?
@MitchVogel You were actually a lot more polite than I expected and I am sorry if I came across as prematurely abrasive. It is just that I've seen a lot of nasty reviews come from this site which I think are unfair. And while I can certainly understand people judging a game based on an initial impression, I have learned to temper my judgment on a game based on various factors, such as budget, resources, price, etc. I also am against the idea of rating a game before the bulk of the content comes out (since many people were less judgmental against Minecraft, although it did the same thing), but that is your own prerogative. It definitely has me thinking of ways on how I can release content that matches that mindset, even if I don't 100% agree with it.
@Cypronia Honestly, I am less than enthusiastic with your responses on this thread. You seem to be bashing a Nindie just so you can use this review as a springboard for your own game. While I agree that we all technically compete against one another, most of my favorite Nindies have been supportive and without them I might not even be making games for the Wii U. Let's not publicly sink one another just so we can raise ourselves up.
By the way, I think your pricing scheme is fine. I personally also believe in charging what a game is worth. I just think people need to keep a few factors in mind when playing Nindie games. This isn't the type of game that should have a number permanently attached to it because it is promising additional updates. Even IGN altered their review of Minecraft after a few years because the game has changed drastically since its initial release.
And honestly, I have had no interactions with the developer prior to this review. If you want to look me up on Twitter, feel free. It is @DerekRumpler. I have no desire to hide my identity. I am responding to this because I feel like the reviews on this site can be too harsh sometimes. I have finished my own Wii U game and while it isn't released yet, I hope to release it soon. I would not necessarily kick back due to a low score, however. Although I might be personally reluctant to give a review code to a site that I feel is unnecessarily harsh.
@CrazyMetroid Thank you!
@McoobabWATP Sure. If everything goes well, Cube Life UK/EU version will be released around mid of June.
@Cypronia cool thanks for taking the time to reply.hope the release goes well for you and I'm looking forward to it.
@Drumpler I totally get what you're saying about the difficulties of indie development!
We made an android game this spring, in only four months, as part of my BIS studies. Man was it hard and in the end we had to make so many compromises, but the end result is something I can be proud to put in my portfolio.
But dude, Stone Shire ain't a finished product, but it's released as a commercial product, so it has to be reviewed as it is. Giving it a higher score just for a future promise of glory would be silly. Maybe NLife will do another review when it's more fleshed out?
@Moshugan Congrats on your game! I've worked on a game for Android and it was a bit tough. There were a number of issues, but we decided to leave it as-is and turn it into a learning experience.
And to be honest, I am less bothered if it were reviewed at a later date or even if the score remained as-is if some time period elapses and the devs decide not to update the game (in the worst case scenario).
Cypronia made a good Wii U game before, Color Zen, and Cube Life: Survival Island looks promising and could be their next hit.
Stone Shire however (only watched a 15min gameplay video) looks basic in comparison. There wasn't even water and that's kinda disappointing. I know they wanna update it, and I hope they do with water and their own fresh and fun ideas. And for the confusion about the 3/10.. this is a review of version 1.0 and not of something of the future.
@Moshugan I seriously doubt that we will re-review it, but it's a tough line to walk. On one hand, if the game actually does immensely improve through updates, then this review would become outdated as the game would conceivably have fixed many of the flaws mentioned. On the other hand, publishing another review would, in my opinion, enable the concept of releasing a half-finished game and would weaken the site's conviction. How can our scores be trusted if we change our minds as games evolve?
I'm personally against the idea of writing another review, it's our job to hold developers accountable for their actions and to be as objective and fair in our judgments as possible. If they wanted a better score, they should've made sure the game that they posted on the eShop was worthy of it.
@MitchVogel Again, consider Minecraft. Imagine if people reviewed it in its earliest state!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trU5H-vQ_8
@Drumpler Thanks! Though making games is a lot of work, it's also very satisfying. I aim to focus on game development in my further BIS studies.
Hopefully ya'll hear about me and my mates in some future time, even tho it's a pretty long way off!
(Publishing on a Nintendo platform would be a dream come true)
@MitchVogel Yup, I totes understand. I agree on the point of your job having to hold the devs accountable.
@Drumpler I know what you mean, a friend and I tooled around with it the summer before it went alpha. The game it is today is so far advanced compared to the good old days!
This is why it's tough to answer how to review games such as this. Where do we draw the line? We can't give everyone variable review scores that change with the updates, but games such as Minecraft are variable by nature and are a sort of exception. If only there was an easier answer to the question!
@AlexOlney Time is not an issue here. Most Indie devs dont run on deadlines set by publishers. So there is really no need to rush it.
And if "getting fed" is an issue, well, you wont get your paycheck from a game no ones going to buy.
Again, the Minecraft modding community already showed that the Minecraft framework can be used for all kinds of creative ideas other then just moving blocks from A to B. That simply wont cut it, and these devs should be aware of that.
So, simply replicating the base idea and calling it a day wont get you anywhere, especially if you know that a direct competitor has a game up their sleeve that does exactly what this game does and much much more already.
Of course its a lot of work and it takes a truckload of effort to pull a game off, that gets people interested. But that should be your main goal.
Mediocrity is not a goal anyone should aim for.
And im not talking about that this game should have been the next evolutionary step in gaming. But a few personal, unique touches not offered by pretty much every other Minecraft close would have helped immensly.
@Captain_Gonru It was the game i was thinking about, yes
But its just one of countless examples here.
Like i said above, the framework can be used im pretty much endless creative ways and this game offers none whatsoever.
Its not that its outright bad, far from it, its just not enough.
It does nothing its competitors arent also doing, maybe even far better.
@MitchVogel I think the best thing you guys could do is some sort of "second visit" article, not a straight up re-review.
Should the game evolve, report on it, draw comparisons, maybe recommend it, should it have become a far better game or just state that the review of it is still accurate.
Reviewing an "Alpha" state game is never a wise thing, but since eShop releases are considered flat out releases, its only fair in my book to review them like that, promised updates or not.
With Minecraft, and many other PC games, its far easier since they are clearly labeled in which development cycle they are etc.
So every customer knows upfront that the game they are about to buy is in its alpha / beta stages.
And im not even sure if the eShop offers developers the opportunity to change their entry to reflect the games changes (Screenshots, text, feature list etc), so future buyers might still be confronted with screens / flavortext that doesnt reflect the game anymore, after it has been patched to be something far different.
@Priceless_Spork The point is, I think that games such as Minecraft (maybe Stone Shire) should be judged at an evolving rate and that, yes, we should change our minds with the game as it changes. However, many developers are content nowadays to put out a nearly broken, unplayable, or unfinished game and just fix it over a period of months through patches. This is not okay and we shouldn't enable or support that kind of game development. The question, and I wish there was an easy answer to it, is: where do we draw the line between where it's okay and where it's not okay for developers to update their games so heavily post-release?
@Dezzy is it bad that I read the whole review believing it was a 3DS game?
I downloaded this £1. I paid more for Urban Champion.
Currently on sale for $1 on the eshop, even at that price buyer beware, it's nothing more than a tech demo and honestly shouldn't even cost money at all, essentially you are buying into a game being developed "supposedly" and this should be stated as so and unless this turns into something more then the developer and Nintendo should be shamed for releasing such a product without more information on the eshop and fake videos and pics and promises that have yet to be seen.
3/10 is being VERY generous.
Tap here to load 46 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...