Thoughts on WarioWare: Get It Together's main mechanics?
- Thread starter CM30
- Start date
I am in the mix here, I honestly kinda like both in a way and I think it's mostly because in get it together you can play as your favorite character or characters.
Like my main choices are usually Mona, Ashely, and 5-volt, sometimes I would challenge myself and play as 9-volt or Penny (If anything I choose Mona for everything I kinda Main her lol). The challenge in Get it Together with each character is what makes it fun for me.
However, the more traditional style like from the past games and the new upcoming WarioWare: Move it! is fun as well! Since I played almost all of the WarioWare games I like to try to get 100 in each stage (Mostly Mona's stage lol).
So in the end, I feel like both styles are pretty fun so if they go back to the traditional style in WarioWare: Move it! then I wouldn't mind it and I would have as much fun as the other past games :>
Like my main choices are usually Mona, Ashely, and 5-volt, sometimes I would challenge myself and play as 9-volt or Penny (If anything I choose Mona for everything I kinda Main her lol). The challenge in Get it Together with each character is what makes it fun for me.
However, the more traditional style like from the past games and the new upcoming WarioWare: Move it! is fun as well! Since I played almost all of the WarioWare games I like to try to get 100 in each stage (Mostly Mona's stage lol).
So in the end, I feel like both styles are pretty fun so if they go back to the traditional style in WarioWare: Move it! then I wouldn't mind it and I would have as much fun as the other past games :>
I liked the additional layer of "you're just not figuring out the objective of the game but what to do with the character you're playing as" but as I grinded the weekly Wario Cup, it became obvious GiT's design has a lot of issues. Beyond some character/games combo just being way too obnoxious, it really does restricts the design of the microgames.
Not all microgames in previous WW involved controlling a character with full motion. Sometimes you might just press a single button to activate a moving claw machine, select an option in a menu, make a static counter go up, whatever! But since now every game has to involve a moving player avatar moving somewhere or executing their main move, that means every game has to be designed to be beaten by not only a traditional player avatar, but 20 of them with varying limitations on their movement and abilities. So to make sure things are still challenging, the developers had to do certain things:
-Complicate or abstract actions that could be directly performed in previous games. Sometimes it was whatever (moving your character to select an answer in a text-based choice instead of just choosing it directly) but in other cases like the rock/paper/scissor game, it was bloody obnoxious.
- Complicate the microgame through "realistic" (read: 2000 flash game-esque) physics, which there was so much of it and I hated it all.
It's entirely anecdotal, but when the game was new I remember reading a lot of reddit posts that went "This game was a bust at parties because learning each character was too confusing". I think that could've been mitigated by having a single character mode but even then, it tells me moving back to the traditional formula was the smart thing to do. I'm not completely opposed to them returning to a character-based setup if they address GiT's issues (in particular, I strongly feel characters like Kat and 9-Volt need more than one button to be less obnoxious) but as it is, nah fam I'm good.
Not all microgames in previous WW involved controlling a character with full motion. Sometimes you might just press a single button to activate a moving claw machine, select an option in a menu, make a static counter go up, whatever! But since now every game has to involve a moving player avatar moving somewhere or executing their main move, that means every game has to be designed to be beaten by not only a traditional player avatar, but 20 of them with varying limitations on their movement and abilities. So to make sure things are still challenging, the developers had to do certain things:
-Complicate or abstract actions that could be directly performed in previous games. Sometimes it was whatever (moving your character to select an answer in a text-based choice instead of just choosing it directly) but in other cases like the rock/paper/scissor game, it was bloody obnoxious.
- Complicate the microgame through "realistic" (read: 2000 flash game-esque) physics, which there was so much of it and I hated it all.
It's entirely anecdotal, but when the game was new I remember reading a lot of reddit posts that went "This game was a bust at parties because learning each character was too confusing". I think that could've been mitigated by having a single character mode but even then, it tells me moving back to the traditional formula was the smart thing to do. I'm not completely opposed to them returning to a character-based setup if they address GiT's issues (in particular, I strongly feel characters like Kat and 9-Volt need more than one button to be less obnoxious) but as it is, nah fam I'm good.
I can add another anecdote for the 'game was a bust at parties' thing. I tried to play multiplayer with some friends before, and it was a catastrophe. Just didn't get the mechanics at all, and everyone quickly decided to go back to Mario Kart and Smash Bros. Though it wasn't just the mechanics that caused that. It was the multiplayer setups just not being all that interesting too. They just didn't have the easy pick up and play appeal you'd expect from a game like this.
But I can definitely see how the character interactions limited some of the game design possibilities. Heck, even with them all technically working there are tons of examples where some characters are just plain useless compared to others because the setup doesn't work well with their moveset at all.
Thanks for giving your thoughts here!