PDA

View Full Version : Prey the Stars: Gabu Gabu Planet - DS - Review


Bluepixie
14th November 2008, 14:55
Prey the Stars: Gabu Gabu Planet - DS – Koei Canada, 2008

http://pausegaming.com/niall/reviewpics/PTS/PTS_cover.jpg

Juice!!!!! Yeaaaaa!! In my tummy, yummy yummy! Chicken!!!! Yeaaaaa! In my tummy, yummy yummy!

Tower block! Yeeaarraah, eh?!!?!!!???!?

All you need is, love. Oh hello. I am the Spirit of Love. There are three important things in this world. The first is love. The second is, again love. Third, and most important is love. In fact, there’s a fourth….It’s love!

That’s what the Spirit of Love told me in this game…….

http://pausegaming.com/niall/reviewpics/PTS/PTS_Screen01.jpg

Yes, I may have lost my marbles but I swear it’s mostly down to this ridiculous Japanese action game by Koei, Prey the Stars: Gabu Gabu Planet. The best way to describe this wacky arcade game would be to imagine the cross-breeding of Pac-Man with Katamari Damacy. Pac-Man brings the retro vibe and grid based eating madness to the table and Katamari Damacy adds the element of increasing your size through eating. Your silly looking dog/alien thingy starts off small, chopping away in a fridge before expanding to the size of house and beyond as the game progresses.

http://pausegaming.com/niall/reviewpics/PTS/PTS_Screen03.jpg
The Shock power-up, one of the more useful ones.

However, this interesting sounding mating doesn’t do the game justice, if any thing it’s an injustice to its parentage, it must be a cuckoo’s egg. The game lacks both any sense of achievement or challenge and has none of its clearly spiritual parents quality or purity. The game has you mainly running around a grid of squares chomping, licking or sucking (no jokes please, this is a kids game right?) on 3 different item sizes. You must pick up the correct power up items dropped at intervals to increase your size, to eat larger items, totally ruining the idea of eating = growth, it’s just about points and power-ups. As well as avoiding various environmental dangers you must compete against up to 3 AI or human opponents for these items. Eating certain objects in groups will grant you Mario Kart style power-ups to boost your performance or hinder your opponents. This malarkey goes on until the items are all gone were the person with the most points wins.

While the game itself is pretty simple, the problem is it’s ridiculously over-the-top UI design covering up the simplicity and its over-egged gameplay tack ons. You can’t just run over an item and get the points, you have to mash a specific button (remember the chomping, licking, sucking?) depending on the item in your gob using a golf-game style power bar. While I can see why the idea made it past the design stages, I just can’t see how it got past play-testing. The result of it is too stop-start and makes collecting (sorry eating) items a real chore, both in single player and multiplayer.

http://pausegaming.com/niall/reviewpics/PTS/PTS_screen02.jpg
Licking a forest I think.....just remember to chew after!

Visually the front end 2D drawn art by Japanese pop artist Touma is cute, but it doesn’t mesh well with the in-game graphics . They are a kafuffle of blocky low-res 3D that the DS musters and intrusively over complex UI information. Not enough shiny modern and not retro enough to provoke nostalgia. And I might have given the impression that the size thing was impressive, whereas the truth is that the individual levels are all exactly the same, it's just they've drawn bigger things on a smaller scale for each consecutive one. The music is not as bad with a bouncy tune for each map but repeated plays to get through to the next area had me reaching for the volume control.

http://pausegaming.com/niall/reviewpics/PTS/PTS_artwork.jpg

Despite cute 2D art work and functional, but clunky visuals, the game ultimately gets repetitive and boring very quickly. There are some additional challenges for each map and a selection of 4 different creatures with slightly different abilities to inject some interest and replay value, but the mechanics never really change enough to capture your interest for long. I’m pretty much convinced that the target market (7+) would find the same problems and discard it after an hour or so of play. While the multiplayer is fun, Bomberman trounces it anyday, so buy that instead.

Remember, all you need is love.

5/10

- Niall Macdonald 13/11/08

To0
14th November 2008, 17:29
5/10

I know we love giving titles massively inflated numbers nowadays so that the publishers don't come round and break legs in the middle of the night but why exactly are you sucking Koei of Canada's dick about this. I read the review twice and still haven't found out what was good about the game... so if nothing is good why does it get more than 0?

Despite clunky visuals, the game ultimately gets repetitive and boring very quickly.

What? Just, what?

I know that reviewing is something you do in your spare time and how precious that time is. But you are taking the effort to do it so just make the extra effort to not sell out, jump on a band wagon and just tell the damn truth.

<your review>
tl;dr
Game sux, 0/10, buy Bomberman, have fun.

Bluepixie
17th November 2008, 01:20
The rating of games, or any other form of media has always annoyed me. It's a total black act unlike the review itself which is purely the reviewer's experience and opinion. There are numerous scoring systems that have been used over the years to rate games, percentages, out of 5, out of 10, star system, break down percentages etc most of which are not ideal. In such a subjective area as someone's opinion (which is what a review actually is), quibbling over one hundredth of a mark or even the 7/10 to a 8/10 is a pointless discussion no one can ever win.

I personally find the out of ten system the most useful, accurate enough to give an idea across to the reader if they're scanning and also avoids the faffy "75% to a 77%" you get in percentage systems.

This game receives a 5/10 because it is "average" in this particular genre. I mean to say, don't buy it unless you MUST play every game in this genre. Despite the negativity, it had the potential to be "good" but ended up having too many problems which I couldn't put up with, and I'm sure the majority of gamers would feel the same. It's still playable, but it's so generic and uninspired that I begin to question why it was released in the first place.

Does that answer your question?

To0
17th November 2008, 01:50
If you read a review from 1 reviewer can you trust them? Probably not. You have to get to know the reviewer. Troll could (in theory) review all the driving games of the world and I'd know which one best suits me from his reviews even though I highly doubt his top pick would be my top pick. All platformers would get an (justifiable in my mind) low score these days as being "nothing special" except when the are executed well like Mirrors Edge appears to be but that game would still not get about 4 possibly 5 out of ten from me but YOU, reading my review would go "Well yeah, but I LIKE those challenges". The body text should reflect what the game is, the score is your subjective view. At no point in your review did you mention that the game was anything other than sub par, every picture tagline is negative. Reading your review I get the genuine impression that you think that folk that made this game missed the mark by a good long margin then you mark it "average". While that would be a hilarously sarcastic comment on the state of gaming and would be quite likely the kind of stunt I'd pull you'd need to have given it at least 9001/10 for anyone to get that you were taking the piss.

I like your review, it tells me I should avoid this game like the fucking plague. So I find your score unjustified.

Fyndir
17th November 2008, 09:05
Troll could (in theory) review all the driving games of the world and I'd know which one best suits me from his reviews even though I highly doubt his top pick would be my top pick

Troll like go fast games.

Hooray!

saladin
17th November 2008, 19:08
So I find your score unjustified.

I feel you've missed the point of what he was saying. Scores are arbitrary signifiers of nothing, entirely subjective from reviewer to reviewer, gamer to gamer. To say that "WTF you gave it a 5" is both redundant and pointless. What Niall defines as a 5 is entirely different from what you'll define as a 5.

Anyway, Niall said that it "ultimately gets repetitive and boring". That means that he had some entertainment out of it, at least. Considering how many games we all play, that's to be expected. If you didn't play so many games, you might not have the same response. He's not just reviewing for the hardcore elite.

tl;dr - scores are pointless, and quibbling about them doubly so.

neogramps
17th November 2008, 19:22
I fixed the problem!

Fyndir
17th November 2008, 20:09
I fixed the problem!

I fixed your mum's problem.

Bluepixie
20th November 2008, 13:39
"Thanks" for editing my review Kenny, I did notice in case you're wondering why I took so long. :p

I've been pondering this, and I've come to the conclusion that the "conclusion" needed editing. I was overly negative with the game at the end of my review and my screenshot taglines were also. You were right Peter, the review doesn't quite justify the score I gave it. My conclusion now reads as follows:

edit:

"Despite cute 2D art work and functional, but clunky visuals, the game ultimately gets repetitive and boring very quickly. There are some additional challenges for each map and a selection of 4 different creatures with slightly different abilities to inject some interest and replay value, but the mechanics never really change enough to capture your interest for long. I’m pretty much convinced that the target market (7+) would find the same problems and discard it after an hour or so of play. While the multiplayer is fun, Bomberman trounces it anyday, so buy that instead.

Remember, all you need is love."

I feel this sums up the game better and reflects the 5/10 score I feel it deserves.

To0
20th November 2008, 14:31
Yep, that reads better for me now.