But arguably it's not a traditional platform game. It's not about obsessive trial and error (it's certainly not being billed as such, or trading on a heritage of any such thing); developers don't make games like that for the mass market because the vast majority of people wouldn't play them any more. I mean, Mario didn't elevate the Wii miles above the rest of the market. No-one would believe Pacman would save a console, or recreate him in any way on this scale. I highly doubt Sony believe it'll convert millions of people to the joys of score attack, or time trials, or redoing everything from the beginning just. One. More. Time. So if the game forces its main audience to put up with this when they're more than likely to trade it in as a result, shouldn't any review throw this up as a possible mark against it? That along with the editor's problems equals a mark off "perfection"; I don't necessarily agree (I haven't played the whole thing, etc., etc.) but I can certainly see their point of view. Remember, EG do admit "abandoning lives completely would have stripped all the tension out of the game". That doesn't mean "therefore they have to be there, so shut up, knuckle down and git 'er dun". 
EDIT:
Perhaps EG are not counting minigames as levels, whereas MM are?

EDIT:
Originally posted by Family Fry
View Post
Comment