The reviews are starting to come in, and they're good, but not great.

IGN: 7.3
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/772/772006p1.html
"If you've played a Worms game before, you know what you're getting here. It's just too bad that the full weapon set wasn't included or a more robust map editor. The result is a game that is fun, but feels like you don't have the full package."

Gamestop: 7.5
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/worms/review.html?sid=6167125
"The core gameplay of antagonistic annelids still holds up nicely, too. The biggest problem with Worms on XBLA is that it lacks the back catalog of weapons, background themes, and voice packs that the series built up in its original 2D heyday."

IC Games: 78%
http://www.ic-games.co.uk/index.php?location=1&&articleid=3779
"If you only ever have 800 points to spend, then the wise would surely invest in some invertebrate madness as the reasons are simple; multiplayer has never been much better than this. It’s a shame that some of the backgrounds and voice packs seem to have been limited for that trademarked MSP exploitation later on, but even in its most basic form, Worms is still highly recommended."

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/worms
Keep watching Metacritic for more Worms XBLA reviews. Will they follow in the same vain? Will anyone give it an 80 or above? A 90? A 60? Even lower? We'll have to wait and find out.

Personally, I feel the reviews are about right. It's by far one of the best games on XBLA, but overall there's just too many missing features, and missed opportunities. What do you all think of the reviews so far?

Yep, if they had put in all the features that they normally put in, this game would have been the best live arcade title yet.

I'm sure we can look forward to paying extra for stuff that should have been in the game.

I think those reviews are pretty much on the money. Worms on the 360 is not a bad game by any means, but it missed the mark with the whole "accessibility for new users" thing and could have been so much more.

I think about 7 is ok for Worms.
For Fans of Team17 and the Worms Series it's even too much.

Mediocre typically means fours or fives.

Those are seven-and-a-halfs.

Mediocre typically means fours or fives.

Those are seven-and-a-halfs.

Current scores from Metacritic / Gamerankings:

Geometry Wars: 86 / 87.7
Alien Hominid HD: 83 / 83.1
Hexic HD: 82 / 80.1
Uno: 81 / 81.9
Cloning Clyde: 81 / 81.1
Marble Blast Ultra: 79 / 81
Assault Heroes: 79 / 77.8
Zuma: 79 / 79.7
Doom: 79 / 78.4
Astropop: 78 / 78.5
Wik: The Fable of Souls: 78 / 77.8
Outpost Kaloki X: 77 / 78.3
Heavy Weapon: 77 / 78.1
Lumines Live!: 77 / 77.1
Mutant Storm Reloaded: 77 / ?
Worms : 73 / 74

It's still early, but that's a lot of XBLA games ranked ahead of Worms right now. Worms could have been a 90+ scoring game easily.

Again, it's not bad by any means. But it's not as good as it could have been.

How many are ranked below?

We all no Worms would have got in the 90's if it didnt have such a small amount of weapons

Mediocre typically means fours or fives.

Those are seven-and-a-halfs.

Acutally, the way Metacritic works, Worms is right on the edge of still favorable reviews. Mixed or Average Reviews for games is the 50-74 range. A 4 to 5 would be a flat out bad review. They understand reviews in the 70's might be good enough for movies or music, but no one sees a 70 review of a game and says "that must be a really good game!". Read about their reviews here: http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml

Not to worry! More maps and voice packs and such are being released separately, as Team17 couldn't fit it into 50mb!

But new weapons aren't being added; Spadge was very clear about that!

A lot of these reviews were out quite a while ago. Reading through a few of them i can see that a lot of them were knocking marks off because they thought that the lack of voices and themes etc. were a way by T17 to 'con' us out of some marketpoints in the near future.

Had they done any research they would know like we do the reason theres limited content as its been said many times.
OK so they say its a bit limited but you can bet your bottom dollar that when the extra themes come out for free they wont be going back and 'fixing' their scores to something a bit more fair.

This is by far the best arcade title for ages and imo the best one overall although hard to compare to UNO or geo wars etc.

But new weapons aren't being added; Spadge was very clear about that!

Yep, but the reviews are basically saying we needed more weapons, which is exactly what WE were saying before it was finished.

If only more developers listened to the people they want to buy the game then they wouldnt have this problem. Seems they think they know whats best for us.

I always knew certain weapons wouldnt be in the game, but hardly any is just terrible.

Yep, but the reviews are basically saying we needed more weapons, which is exactly what WE were saying before it was finished.

If only more developers listened to the people they want to buy the game then they wouldnt have this problem. Seems they think they know whats best for us.

I always knew certain weapons wouldnt be in the game, but hardly any is just terrible.
In those three summaries, two of them complained of a lack of weapons. Likewise, two of them complained of both a lack of voice banks and backround themes!

well the worms fans(ign reader reviews) all rate the game above an 8.5 and are very happy with worms, i think t17 made this game for the worms fans they made a mistake by deleting some weapons but the real fans wont bother

-by a worms fan

Like I said the perfect solution to this is to just make the boring weapon selection they have now the default. Give us the rest of the stuff and let us customize our own weapon sets. This really isn't that difficult.

... This really isn't that difficult.
Then you have no idea what it takes to design a game...

Then you have no idea what it takes to design a game...

They have made the exact game I am talking about years ago. Are you saying that all the previous worms versions were bad? If you can't admit that less customization is a bad thing, then you have problems.

They have made the exact game I am talking about years ago. Are you saying that all the previous worms versions were bad? If you can't admit that less customization is a bad thing, then you have problems.
I can admit that. But I don't admit that going "Hey, we'll give you lots of over-powered weapons! But we're not going to give you any indication of how much you should have in your schemes to keep a game balanced, because we only have schemes for the regular weapons!" is a good idea at all!

if the idea is that the powered weapons are for experienced players, the presupposition is that these players will know how to balance them. all of the new players can use the "bare minimum" default schemes until they learn enough about worms to start feel the weapons balance.

if the idea is that the powered weapons are for experienced players, the presupposition is that these players will know how to balance them. all of the new players can use the "bare minimum" default schemes until they learn enough about worms to start feel the weapons balance.
Tat's nice, in theory. But in reality, new people are just going to put all weapons on straight away, when they realise that they can!

Tat's nice, in theory. But in reality, new people are just going to put all weapons on straight away, when they realise that they can!

And if they do, they'll have a lot of fun. If they decide they want a more hard-core strategic experience, they can turn off some of the weapons. That's the way it worked for Worms 2, Worms: Armageddon, and Worms World Party, and casual gamers and hardcore gamers alike loved those games.

And if they do, they'll have a lot of fun. If they decide they want a more hard-core strategic experience, they can turn off some of the weapons. That's the way it worked for Worms 2, Worms: Armageddon, and Worms World Party, and casual gamers and hardcore gamers alike loved those games.
Not really. Note how in W:A, all weapons could only be unlocked when you completed the game, so people wouldn't have been using all weapons straight away!
In fact, in all my time playing online, I don't think I've ever seen a non-full wormage game online that had all the choosable weapons in it.



...or not. I had a bit too much Sprite right now, so I can't think properlery! :p

Tat's nice, in theory. But in reality, new people are just going to put all weapons on straight away, when they realise that they can!
so? as long as some people will still host games with balanced weapons, as they will, eventually it will shift towards whichever way is more fun for everybody, and isn't that the whole point?

Here's some anecdotal evidence, on live and off live I have found that what people have been longing for the most have not been the 'super-weapons' or at the very least not the level of damage the 'super-weapons' did but instead the humorous aspect of weapons. I personally am missing the holy hand grenade and old woman the most and these two along with the baseball bat seem to be what people I have spoken to miss greatly.

On the topic of the review scores, I don't personally think it was technically viable to have anymore weapons in the game looking at how close it came to the 50MB limit as it is. Unfortunately inspite Team17 not being responsible for the size limit the game still has to be reviewed based on it's gameplay and not intentions. Having said that, I think Worms is by far the best game on XBLA; I have a selection of games from a pack I bought with my 360 and the only game I have bought since has been Worms. I really think the game deserves an 8/10 to be honest.

Cmon, you never know, its a longshot, but they might add one or two new weapons into the game, if not, ye developers are demons from hell!!

Here's some anecdotal evidence, on live and off live I have found that what people have been longing for the most have not been the 'super-weapons' or at the very least not the level of damage the 'super-weapons' did but instead the humorous aspect of weapons. I personally am missing the holy hand grenade and old woman the most and these two along with the baseball bat seem to be what people I have spoken to miss greatly.

On the topic of the review scores, I don't personally think it was technically viable to have anymore weapons in the game looking at how close it came to the 50MB limit as it is. Unfortunately inspite Team17 not being responsible for the size limit the game still has to be reviewed based on it's gameplay and not intentions. Having said that, I think Worms is by far the best game on XBLA; I have a selection of games from a pack I bought with my 360 and the only game I have bought since has been Worms. I really think the game deserves an 8/10 to be honest.

The problem is Team17 has insisted that the current limited weaponset is all they ever intended to include and that the size limit would make no difference (and also that they have no intentions of releasing downloadable weapon packs). I do hope they change their minds.

To me, Worms doesn't need all the old weapons. I'd much rather just have some of the old options and features.. Teleport in, select worm before turn begins, nuke and getting sick at sudden death (rather than screwing you out of your lead by putting everyone to 1 on health), basic level editor, options to save levels, options on mines and drums, options on starting health and number of worms, crate frequency options, anchored worms, team play, bring back bridges, etc.

None of these missing things would be too complex for new players, because they wouldn't even need to mess with them until they got the basics down, and wanted to choose a different way to play the game. They also add a ton of replay value which is now gone from the game. Not to say there's no replay value in what is there, as it's still though the roof.

Even with the limited options, it's still a great game, a great value, and one of the best titles on XBLA. It's just sad knowing everything that could have been.

Getting back to the original topic, Worms recently got its best review yet, an 8.0 from Xbox IC: http://www.xboxic.com/news/2549

This brings the overall Metacritic score to a 7.5, just one point higher than "mixed or average reviews".

Here's why the game has been getting mediocre review:

I'm kinda disappointed with the new version on 360. Here we have a Worms game, same formula as ever, prettier graphics, not really doing anything new. . .why is there still like 15 seconds of "think" time before an AI attacks? Processors are obscenely more powerful now, so why does it have the same loading time (and seemingly the same bad, cheap, unfun AI)?

Worms 2 was released almost 10 years ago and Worms XBLA does nothing to improve on that formula. Instead, we get a gimped version with less weapons and less voice banks and terrains.

Basically, we are the ones paying for and playing the game and so many of us have asked for more weapons and AFAIK, such concerns were voiced out before the game was even released on XBLA. Team 17 just doesn't seem to think that our opinions matter at all.

The AI is far better than it was in WWP. I don't know why it takes at least 15 seconds before it even starts to move. It doesn't appear to be any smarter than the AI in the PSP version. The 360 is more than 10 times faster than the PSP, so it shouldn't even take half the time. I don't really mind waiting 15 seconds but I'm sure it could have been faster. Fortunately I can just play against humans, unfortunately some humans still take more than 15 seconds to make a move :)

They're right.


The reviews are starting to come in, and they're good, but not great.

IGN: 7.3
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/772/772006p1.html
"If you've played a Worms game before, you know what you're getting here. It's just too bad that the full weapon set wasn't included or a more robust map editor. The result is a game that is fun, but feels like you don't have the full package."

Gamestop: 7.5
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/worms/review.html?sid=6167125
"The core gameplay of antagonistic annelids still holds up nicely, too. The biggest problem with Worms on XBLA is that it lacks the back catalog of weapons, background themes, and voice packs that the series built up in its original 2D heyday."

IC Games: 78%
http://www.ic-games.co.uk/index.php?location=1&&articleid=3779
"If you only ever have 800 points to spend, then the wise would surely invest in some invertebrate madness as the reasons are simple; multiplayer has never been much better than this. It’s a shame that some of the backgrounds and voice packs seem to have been limited for that trademarked MSP exploitation later on, but even in its most basic form, Worms is still highly recommended."

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/worms
Keep watching Metacritic for more Worms XBLA reviews. Will they follow in the same vain? Will anyone give it an 80 or above? A 90? A 60? Even lower? We'll have to wait and find out.

Personally, I feel the reviews are about right. It's by far one of the best games on XBLA, but overall there's just too many missing features, and missed opportunities. What do you all think of the reviews so far?

They're right.

And you had to quote my ENTIRE first post to say so?

While I do feel 7.5 to 8.0 is about right for a review of Worms XBLA, I wouldn't for a minute screw myself out of buying it. We're talking about 800 points here, 10 dollars US, when people are spending half that for Pac-man and Paperboy! Like I said, Worms is an awesome value, it's just missing too many features we've come to know and love.

Weapons take a good deal of time to program, but a "teleport in" feature wouldn't. Neither should getting sick at sudden death, worm select before your turn, indestructible terrain, anchored worms, options on mines, team play, and several other things I mentioned in this thread.

Some of these things would have been so simple to keep, but they're just gone, and there's no good reason for it. That's the reason I don't think Worms XBLA should receive better reviews than what it has been getting. Not because Team 17 didn't reprogram WWP with a new art direction and give it to us for 800 MSP.

Neither should getting sick at sudden death

I haven't got the game so I'm not going to argue your other points, but getting sick at sudden death would require a HELL of a lot of extra work.

In WA, all Team 17 needed to do was mimic the nuclear bomb weapon. The graphics were all already there.

In this version however, there are no weapons that poison worms, therefore you'd need to add in extra animations of sick worms, then you'd probably need to add in lots of coughing sounds, and to top it all off, you'd probably need to show a nuclear explosion in the background, not to mention the actual code for poisoning worms.

And all in HD too.

I personally think that Team 17 made WA a bit TOO good, as now everything they do compares to it, despite the fact that this one wasn't SUPPOSED to be like it.

Starting on mines does sound really silly though, to be fair.

I haven't got the game so I'm not going to argue your other points, but getting sick at sudden death would require a HELL of a lot of extra work.

All good points, but that's really not what I was thinking. I don't need the "nuclear bomb animation, worms getting sick animation, worms coughing sounds" and all that. I just want health to be slowly taken away from everyone at the start of sudden death, rather than to be screwed out of a 300 point lead when every worm on the screen is dropped to 1 point each.

Right now the only SD option is the limit on game time, and it goes to a maximum of 30 minutes. Once that time is up, water rises and everyone drops down to "1". There's no other option, and no choice in the matter. Can't do the sick thing? Then at least let me turn off the health drop, and have it a separate option from the water rise. How much extra programing would that have taken?

New reviews!

Planetxbox.com gives Worms XBLA its worst review yet, a 70.
http://www.planetxbox360.com/index.php/articledetails/show/1525/2
"Hopefully, what we’re looking at here are more themes, more music, and (most importantly) more weapons. If I sound like I’m not giving you a glowing review, it’s because I’m not. $15 would have been too much. As it is, $10 is just about perfect for this multiplayer-preferred game. I am hoping that the overall value of Worms XBLA will increase tremendously by the addition of free and perhaps justifiable premium content, featuring more varied weapons and environments, and look forward eagerly to Team 17’s next announcement about it."

And Yahoo games gives Worms XBLA its best review yet, a 90!
http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamereview?cid=1951463866&tab=reviews&page=0&eid=508441
"Yes, it'd be great if all the classic weapons were back in. But there are few really egregious omissions --and Worms doesn't suffer from its age one jot. Indeed, it positively benefits from it, avoiding the numerous missteps of the series' difficult middle years and delivering a definitive, polished, and razor-sharp experience. There are few better multiplayer games in existence, and no better ones on Xbox Live Arcade. If your gaming habits ever include playing with others, online or off, Worms is utterly essential."

Shame on you, Team 17. :(
And congratulations, Team 17! :)

This brings the overall metacritic score to 76.

Ouch. Things were really looking up for Worms XBLA reviews, with Yahoo! Games giving it a 90, but now Game Pro just dropped this bomb:

Game Pro: 3.25 out of 5 (65%)
http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/reviews/106069.shtml

"Worms is one of those franchises that never should have made the jump to 3D. That's why the nostalgic yearning for this Xbox Live Arcade 2D version (priced at about $10), has been high. So what do you get for a Hamilton?
An extremely scaled-down version of Worms Armageddon with almost no customization options, around a third of the original 60-some-odd weapons, about as basic an online multiplayer as imaginable-- and it's buggy, to boot. That said, it's still the basic 2D Worms gameplay and it's still pretty fun."


This brings the overall Metacritic score to 74, which is just starting to dip into the "Mixed or Average Reviews" range.

I think what you guys are missing on is the mention of the online bugs. It's hard to give a game that focuses so much on multiplayer over an 80 when it has such glaring, unavoidable bugs in its network code. Hopefully these will be patched up, though.

Also, the reviewers are correct in stating that we're being nickel-and-dimed a bit here. Team 17 has stated that no new weapons will be added, but that DLC will be both free and will cost points. And since only new backgrounds and voices will be added, that means we're going to be charged for at least some of them.

I think they probably underestimated how much people wanted some of these extra weapons, because it probably wouldn't have been difficult to add them as free downloadable content if they were only omitted because of the size requirement. But if the game's not coded to be able to add new weapons in from DLC, then it's probably too late to now. I would assume the same goes for customization options.

Personally, I don't see any reason not to just grab every voicepack from WWP, convert it to the right format, and throw it on XBL as downloadable content. I mean they're already recorded and everything. And I'm sure nobody would mind some of the static backgrounds from earlier games either if there was more variety.

I have to agree with the ratings I was really sad to see the lack of weapons please add more weapons I relize the team had problems with only having a max of 50 mb but xbox live has since raised it to 150 mb so please add more weapons team 17.

And please do it in a update so everyone gets them not just people who purchase them as downloadable content it will bring the rating up way higher and you will sell alot more downloads trust me its in team 17 interest to do this.

Also if possible make it so the host can choose which weapons are aloud not just a preset list thank you I'm done.

This is a $10 game people, why would you even think it'd be as "big" as a retail game?

This isn't WA2 or WWP2, this isn't a sequel to Worms2, it's an arcade remake of Worms1 and it's 1/6th the price of retail games.

The reviews have been stupid, frankly, judging the game on what they wanted out of it and completely igorning what it is. It's an arcade game, it's taste of worms at value price - and it's great for what it is, and even better for what it isn't.

Well maybe because many of the weapons have been out for over a decade and some of the missing weapons in a way kind of define what worms is. Such as the holy hand grenade and supersheep and without them it seems like a main ingredient is missing and the flavor just isn't quite right.

Yeah, I don't see how the $10 price tag justifies some of the problems. Can't you buy W:A and/or WWP for around that price now? More content, just for a different platform (Regardless of their price when they actually first came out, that's how things stand now).

Worms has now pulled back into the "generally favorable reviews" rating with a new review.


Games Radar: 8.0
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/xbox360/game/reviews/article.jsp?articleId=20070312135429496035&sectionId=1000

"Technically, there are a couple of flaws. One is that there aren’t as many weapons here as some Worms fans will be used to. The other is that, during our review test, the online game servers were having a bit of trouble. Whether that’s an ongoing issue or not will be a major factor in how the game does, considering the multiplayer focus.

But assuming that last issue gets resolved in the coming weeks, Worms is a fantastic addition to your Live Arcade library."


Worms once again has a Metacritic score of 75.

I think labelling these scores as "mediocre" is a bit much. The game is a HD update of one that is 10yrs old (give or take a year). It's also a more casual version, has a different price point and is also losing % marks for the reduced content, which wasn't really our point.

I certainly think a game that scores 7/8 out of 10 is generally considered good quality these days. Few games get 10 and it's usually new or real $-budget titles that get the 9's.

I think after a month or so when some DLC has arrived in the form of voices and more maps, the 4 player issue on the server is fully resolved and a couple of minor things clered up, then the score in people's minds at least will be much higher. It's a great game to play online.

I think labelling these scores as "mediocre" is a bit much. The game is a HD update of one that is 10yrs old (give or take a year). It's also a more casual version, has a different price point and is also losing % marks for the reduced content, which wasn't really our point.

I certainly think a game that scores 7/8 out of 10 is generally considered good quality these days. Few games get 10 and it's usually new or real $-budget titles that get the 9's.

I think after a month or so when some DLC has arrived in the form of voices and more maps, the 4 player issue on the server is fully resolved and a couple of minor things clered up, then the score in people's minds at least will be much higher. It's a great game to play online.

I do agree, but sadly, reviewers don't often "rereview" games after the developers have updated them and added more content. As for "mediocre", I'm just going by Metacritic here, and to them anything under 75 is "mixed or average reviews". I've already linked to it in this thread, but here's how their score system works: http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml

Soon as I started playing the game I had a bad feeling reviewers were going to review Worms XBLA for what it's not, rather than what it is, and I was right. I even said something to that effect on this forum.

I've always felt Worms was a game about not only strategy, but also customization. We can't control crate drops, mine timers, some weapons have strange limits (do you want 0 cluster bombs, or 1), there's no "teleport in" feature, there are no sudden death options, etc. People are used to these things, and when they're not there, reviews are going to suffer. I don't think these things would have taken much more work, and I think their absence hurts the game.

At the same time, I understand how you shouldn't be expected to reprogram WA with updated HD graphics, and sell it for 800 MSP. I also think several reviews have been way too harsh about that fact. One review even had the nerve to say that 10 dollars was too much for the weapons and features found in Worms XBLA, and that 7 dollars would have been more fair.

I don't at all agree with that. To me, Worms is probably the best value of any game on XBLA. But a lot of people look to reviews to help them make up their minds about what games to buy, and I thought it would be interesting to look at those reviews, and see in what light is Worms being represented to the general public.

Congrats on that Yahoo! review, btw. The reviewer seemed to really get what you're trying to do with this version of Worms. And yes, "It's a great game to play online" is very much true.


[edit]

Another rough review for Worms XBLA, this time from TeamXbox.com

TeamXbox: 6.7
http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1299/Worms/p1/
"Ultimately, it’s Worms’ lack of features that is its downfall. There’s a semblance of a map editor, but there’s no real user control. Why can’t I place my own objects or shape my own terrain? Why do I have to let the computer do it? And why don’t I have access to weapons that past Worms installments have had? These questions, as well as others, are what Worms veterans will be wondering when they fire up the 800-point XBLA offering. Diehards will find enough to warrant a purchase, but others should know that there are several other Worms offerings that are better suited to first-timers."

I'm sorry to say it, but this once again brings the Metacritic score back to 74.

I think labelling these scores as "mediocre" is a bit much. The game is a HD update of one that is 10yrs old (give or take a year). It's also a more casual version, has a different price point and is also losing % marks for the reduced content, which wasn't really our point.

But usually, reviewers try to look at a game not from the perspective of what the developers wanted it to be, but what the customers want it to be.


I certainly think a game that scores 7/8 out of 10 is generally considered good quality these days. Few games get 10 and it's usually new or real $-budget titles that get the 9's.


As SpaceInsom has pointed out, it is hovering between the top edge of the "Mediocre" tier and the lower part of the "Generally Favorable" tier as far as Metacritic is concerned. And if you take a look at the reviews of other XBLA titles (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=565220&postcount=6), Worms is rated above average, but still below a lot of titles like Geometry Wars, Alien Hominid, Hexic, and even Doom and Uno. Much of the flak comes from people who were expecting more out of the game, but I guess that just goes to show that you can't go backwards in terms of content. Worms 2 had far more in it than Worms on the 360 a decade ago so people expect that a new game should have at least what the older ones had.


I think after a month or so when some DLC has arrived in the form of voices and more maps, the 4 player issue on the server is fully resolved and a couple of minor things clered up, then the score in people's minds at least will be much higher. It's a great game to play online.

The problem is, the thing that seems to be complained about most in terms of reduced content is actually the weapons, and downloadable voices and maps won't change that. The reviews from Yahoo, Xboxic, Games Radar, Gamespot, IGN, Planet Xbox 360, Gamepro, and TeamXbox all complain about lack of weapons (that's 7 of the 9 reviews listed on Metacritic, plus Teamxbox, that complained about the weapons). Only Xboxic, ic-games, Gamespot, IGN, Planet Xbox 360 really complain much about the lack of themes or soundbanks.

I do agree, but sadly, reviewers don't often "rereview" games after the developers have updated them and added more content. As for "mediocre", I'm just going by Metacritic here, and to them anything under 75 is "mixed or average reviews". I've already linked to it in this thread, but here's how their score system works: http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml

Soon as I started playing the game I had a bad feeling reviewers were going to review Worms XBLA for what it's not, rather than what it is, and I was right. I even said something to that effect on this forum.

I've always felt Worms was a game about not only strategy, but also customization. We can't control crate drops, mine timers, some weapons have strange limits (do you want 0 cluster bombs, or 1), there's no "teleport in" feature, there are no sudden death options, etc. People are used to these things, and when they're not there, reviews are going to suffer. I don't think these things would have taken much more work, and I think their absence hurts the game.

At the same time, I understand how you shouldn't be expected to reprogram WA with updated HD graphics, and sell it for 800 MSP. I also think several reviews have been way too harsh about that fact. One review even had the nerve to say that 10 dollars was too much for the weapons and features found in Worms XBLA, and that 7 dollars would have been more fair.

I don't at all agree with that. To me, Worms is probably the best value of any game on XBLA. But a lot of people look to reviews to help them make up their minds about what games to buy, and I thought it would be interesting to look at those reviews, and see in what light is Worms being represented to the general public.

Congrats on that Yahoo! review, btw. The reviewer seemed to really get what you're trying to do with this version of Worms. And yes, "It's a great game to play online" is very much true.

We're very aware of how reviews and reviewers work - and also gamerankings/metacritic, I just think they should review what's on offer, not what isn't - or was ever planned to be.

Above average/mixed reviews is not mediocre, btw :-) I think we'd need to be 30-40 or below on average for that. We're being reviewed on the same level as titles like Gears of War and Oblivion for content, for a $10 live arcade release that caters for more casual arcade style play and was subject to Microsoft's own size limitations. We read pretty much all the reviews and it's the same everytime; people want everything - and they don't expect it to cost anymore.

I think labelling these scores as "mediocre" is a bit much. The game is a HD update of one that is 10yrs old (give or take a year). It's also a more casual version, has a different price point and is also losing % marks for the reduced content, which wasn't really our point.

I certainly think a game that scores 7/8 out of 10 is generally considered good quality these days. Few games get 10 and it's usually new or real $-budget titles that get the 9's.

I think after a month or so when some DLC has arrived in the form of voices and more maps, the 4 player issue on the server is fully resolved and a couple of minor things clered up, then the score in people's minds at least will be much higher. It's a great game to play online.

It better than ALL the other ****e on XBLA, none of which I'd rate above 4/10

Nothing's ever perfect. This is near enough for me (I'd just like more options to shape games, not more weapons)

I guess it depends how you review things. Do you say "yes, it's limited, but then it was only $10" and give it a high mark or do you say "it's limited", mark it down accordingly, and trust the consumer to decide if they want a 6/10 game for $10 or a 9/10 game for $50?

Personally, I'd go for the former, because otherwise if someone really pulls out all the stops and makes a $500 game that's totally worth the money you'll have to give it 46/10 and that's just crazy talk.

I have to say that Worms has been the best 800 points I've spent on Live Arcade so far. My entire household were stuck to the tellybox all weekend, naming, wriggling and destroying.

That's never happened before.

It's the game I remember adoring all those years ago, and people coming fresh to the franchise (ie the people I live with) love every second of it. It's a classic social gaming experience, I hope T17 have more gems like this on the way for XBLA!

and was subject to Microsoft's own size limitations.

Then can I take it you wont be charging for extra game content? I mean.. no point in punishing US for a Microsoft rule, right?

Of course I dont mean themes and whatnot.

I guess it depends how you review things. Do you say "yes, it's limited, but then it was only $10" and give it a high mark or do you say "it's limited", mark it down accordingly, and trust the consumer to decide if they want a 6/10 game for $10 or a 9/10 game for $50?

Personally, I'd go for the former, because otherwise if someone really pulls out all the stops and makes a $500 game that's totally worth the money you'll have to give it 46/10 and that's just crazy talk.


Sorry to double post but they're probably basing everything on past Worms games, as they should. No point in buying a new one if the old ones are better.. and around the same price point too now.

I mean, if Geometry Wars 3 came out and it looked like GW1, would you say it would be fair to mark it down? Even if the developers said "we never even meant for it to look as good as GW2".

And yes, that last remark was a dig at the horrible excuse for lack of weapons in Worms.

We're very aware of how reviews and reviewers work - and also gamerankings/metacritic, I just think they should review what's on offer, not what isn't - or was ever planned to be.

Above average/mixed reviews is not mediocre, btw :-) I think we'd need to be 30-40 or below on average for that. We're being reviewed on the same level as titles like Gears of War and Oblivion for content, for a $10 live arcade release that caters for more casual arcade style play and was subject to Microsoft's own size limitations. We read pretty much all the reviews and it's the same everytime; people want everything - and they don't expect it to cost anymore.

As dramatic as people are being about this game being smaller, I think you're doing a little of the same here. Reviewed on the same level as Gears of War and Oblivion in terms of content? Maybe I could see your point if you're talking in terms of fun-factor, but I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to convince us even WWP had nearly as much content as either of those.

We love you guys and we love the Worms series, but as frustrating as it is for you guys to hear all these complaints about your newly released game, it's probably equally frustrating for the fan-base that helped make Worms so popular to suggest things and keep hearing "We couldn't - it's the file-size limit" and "this makes the game more casual for new players". Now it's "All the reviews are wrong - They're being unfair."

If something like GTA1 were released for XBLA, but with only one level and less weapons, I can guarantee you the same thing would happen, nevermind that GTA1 was a full game release when it first came out. Why shouldn't successful game series be held to the higher standard they set in the first place?


Now, I don't really see what else could've been done. With the MS filesize limit and MS setting the price for DLC. Contrary to what some people have been stating on this forum, it's just not financially viable to test and add in new weapons or features at this point (I used to be a QA tester- a lot of work goes in, especially with a multiplayer game). But Worms is by far the most enjoyable and best value on XBLA right now. What I think we'd just like to hear, though, is something like a "Thanks for your suggestions, we appreciate you guys being so into the game and we'll consider them if there's a sequel, but we think Worms turned out to be one of the best games on XBLA." I'd much prefer an honest statement like that to (at least what seem like) contradictory excuses about the filesize limit and deciding to decrease the number of weapons for new gamers.

Sorry to double post but they're probably basing everything on past Worms games, as they should. No point in buying a new one if the old ones are better.. and around the same price point too now.

I mean, if Geometry Wars 3 came out and it looked like GW1, would you say it would be fair to mark it down? Even if the developers said "we never even meant for it to look as good as GW2".
You can't compare it to some hypothetical GW3 being worse than GW2, because this isn't Worms Armageddon 2. This is a whole new branch of Worms on a whole new platform, for a whole new market. Why should it have everything W:A had? It's aimed at different people with different attitudes and the same exact content again isn't automatically appropriate. They've got a game that suits their tastes fine, judging by the number of "nice one Team17" posts and the amount of games that are played on Live Arcade. Meanwhile the W:A camp, well, they have W:A. The people who want Worms on XBLA to have everything W:A had are just the little overlap in the middle of The Great Worms Venn Diagram:
29560
Er, that's not you specifically. You're being fairly calm. But that's less fun to draw. Anyway, you get the general idea -- they're a minority of both groups, but they make more noise than anyone else.

And reviewers, being reviewers, tend to fall in the middle bit too -- they're primarily gamers, if they're any good. But reviewing an XBLA game from the perspective of a PC gamer is unhelpful. Well, unless you make it clear beforehand that that is what you're doing -- PC gamers with XBLA (i.e., other people in the middle section) will appreciate it. XBLA players would probably rather it be reviewed from their perspective, because that's how they'll see it if they buy it.

If Landrover released a city car and it wasn't four-wheel drive would you complain that they'd taken a step backwards and made their car worse?

And yes, that last remark was a dig at the horrible excuse for lack of weapons in Worms.
Yes, I go that, thanks.

You can't compare it to some hypothetical GW3 being worse than GW2, because this isn't Worms Armageddon 2. This is a whole new branch of Worms on a whole new platform, for a whole new market. Why should it have everything W:A had? It's aimed at different people with different attitudes and the same exact content again isn't automatically appropriate. They've got a game that suits their tastes fine, judging by the number of "nice one Team17" posts and the amount of games that are played on Live Arcade. Meanwhile the W:A camp, well, they have W:A. The people who want Worms on XBLA to have everything W:A had are just the little overlap in the middle of The Great Worms Venn Diagram:
29560
Er, that's not you specifically. You're being fairly calm. But that's less fun to draw. Anyway, you get the general idea -- they're a minority of both groups, but they make more noise than anyone else.

And reviewers, being reviewers, tend to fall in the middle bit too -- they're primarily gamers, if they're any good. But reviewing an XBLA game from the perspective of a PC gamer is unhelpful. Well, unless you make it clear beforehand that that is what you're doing -- PC gamers with XBLA (i.e., other people in the middle section) will appreciate it. XBLA players would probably rather it be reviewed from their perspective, because that's how they'll see it if they buy it.

I'm not sure that this mystical group of casual gamers even exists, or at least the way Team17 thinks it does. If this was a cell phone game or an Ipod game, it would make more sense. But XBLA is entirely dependent on Xbox ownership. Certainly, by and large, Xbox 360 owners don't fit into the "casual gamers" category. "Casual gamers" may be family members or friends of the Xbox 360 owners, but then they're probably still relying on the owners to introduce them to games, like in my case.

I don't think "targeting a different audience" was even necessary, because the old Worms on the PC (Worms 2 and W:A) was never "daunting" to new players. It probably attracted more casual gamers than just about any other computer game this side of Myst.


If Landrover released a city car and it wasn't four-wheel drive would you complain that they'd taken a step backwards and made their car worse?

Absolutely! There'd be an outcry amongst the Land Rover enthusiasts. There's a similar thing happening with Jeep releasing a "non-trail rated" vehicle.

Then can I take it you wont be charging for extra game content? I mean.. no point in punishing US for a Microsoft rule, right?

Of course I dont mean themes and whatnot.

I already made this exact same arguement in another thread. Then I found out MS has the final say for what is free content, and is paid content. From what I understand, Team 17 can make suggestions, but it can't all be free, because it lowers the value of the paid content in other games.

I'm not sure that this mystical group of casual gamers even exists, or at least the way Team17 thinks it does. If this was a cell phone game or an Ipod game, it would make more sense. But XBLA is entirely dependent on Xbox ownership. Certainly, by and large, Xbox 360 owners don't fit into the "casual gamers" category. "Casual gamers" may be family members or friends of the Xbox 360 owners, but then they're probably still relying on the owners to introduce them to games, like in my case.

Then who's buying Hardwood Spades?

I mean, have you looked at the games on XBLA? Joust, Backgammon, UNO, Poker, Doom, Ms Pac Man, DigDug, Street Fighter... These are not hardcore, full-featured, modern games. They're a combination of board games, decade old ports, and niche games nobody's ever heard of. You're lucky not to have a direct port of the original Amiga game. Are you really telling me anyone other than casual gamers would buy any of that?

And remember it's perfectly possible to be a "hardcore" gamer and a casual gamer, depending on your mood.

Then who's buying Hardwood Spades?

I mean, have you looked at the games on XBLA? Joust, Backgammon, UNO, Poker, Doom, Ms Pac Man, DigDug, Street Fighter... These are not hardcore, full-featured, modern games. They're a combination of board games, decade old ports, and niche games nobody's ever heard of. You're lucky not to have a direct port of the original Amiga game. Are you really telling me anyone other than casual gamers would buy any of that?

And remember it's perfectly possible to be a "hardcore" gamer and a casual gamer, depending on your mood.

Yes, that's exactly right. I personally don't consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, but I don't consider myself a "casual" gamer either. Still, I have bought Hardwood Backgammon and have fun playing it occasionally. But because I'm familiar with Worms 2 and Worms: Armageddon and I realize that those games were more fun and customizable almost 10 years ago than Worms on the XBLA is today, it's hard to be satisfied with the new title.

Uno (cough) - far and away the most successful 360 XBLA title.

You just don't "get" why we did it - and that's fine, it really is. We understand you wanted Armageddon, but you know, it already exists... An all new, all singing, all dancing retail version of 2d Worms is currently not on the cards. We may return to the digital platform depending on how we guage feedback and demand etc.

Andew: Nice drawing lol I understand your point. However, I havent even played W:A (I know it was just an example), and it not like I want every weapon in the previous games.. just more fun ones. It really cuts down on a lot of strategy and the amount of differences a game can have. Dont get me wrong, I appreciate a lot of the effort that was pit into the game. For one I love the backgrounds.. they're nicely animated, 3D and even the clock in London is right :D but I would gave certainly gone for a static background if it meant putting more weapons.

If the argument is still that you want to simplify the game for people new to Worms then it gets a little tricky. For example, how hard would it be for a newcomer to work out the baseball bat? or the pistol? or even the bungee rope? They're easy enough.. and the bungee rope is arguably easier to use than the standard rope. I think whoever made the final decision on the weapons thought the general user is a hell of a lot more stupid than they actually are.

I really dont care that these so called super-weapons arent in the game. Just simply more of them would have created more uses for the player to change it up a little. I mean, even the randomly generated maps dont really seem that random to me.. i've come across many the same looking maps in my play time with just a few bowler hats or missiles moving slightly across the screen.

Also.. as I dont think this has been asked. How come you had so much trouble fitting all of this into 50MB when we see a game like RoboBlitz, which is a fully 3D UE3 engined game with the same limit? Just curious.

I don't think the idea is the the individual weapons are too complicated for people; it's the fact that there were about 75 of them. Put 75 different weapons into a game and it becomes complicated, no matter how simple the 75 things are.

Personally, I much prefer the kind of complexity that arises from having a very simple set of rules. It's more mathematically elegant, as well as being a lot more accessible.

Also.. as I dont think this has been asked. How come you had so much trouble fitting all of this into 50MB when we see a game like RoboBlitz, which is a fully 3D UE3 engined game with the same limit? Just curious.

Generally, binary code takes up a tiny amount of space compared to graphics and sound, and Worms is one of very few HD games on XBLA.

Also.. as I dont think this has been asked. How come you had so much trouble fitting all of this into 50MB when we see a game like RoboBlitz, which is a fully 3D UE3 engined game with the same limit? Just curious.

Roboblitz uses "procedural textures" which are generated by the computer using an advance process. It's quite a clever solution, but utterly unusable for drawn objects like we use. We could in theory do the main texture on the landscape as procedural, but we couldn't procedurally generate the large objects and other interesting stuff.

Then can I take it you wont be charging for extra game content? I mean.. no point in punishing US for a Microsoft rule, right?


But Team17 don't decide the pricing of downloadable content, Microsoft do, as they are the publishers of the title and said content.

Sorry to double post

General rule: if you know you're doing something wrong, don't do it. The edit button is there for a reason.

I was a little disappointed at some of the weapons that were omitted... staples of the Worms franchise that I've grown to love... at first. After having played extensively for the past few days, I still miss them, but now I realize why.

Humor and variety. I laughed a lot when using the Holy Hand Grenade. Ignore how much damage it does, it's just plain funny. But it also added spice to the game. Now when I'm hanging above a group of worms on my trusty ninja rope, and I'm cycling through my list of weapons I can drop, I'm like... out of Dynamite, I could drop a mine... but I dropped 3 mines in my last game... grenade, no that's boring... sheep, too unpredictable... too bad there's no Ming Vase or HHG. Oh well.

Don't get me wrong, the game is super fun and especially with a group of friends online. But those "special" weapons added a little something to the game that seems to be missing now. Strategy is certainly top priority now, which is great, but every now and then I find myself longing for the good ol' days.

Alien Hominid? Would anyone rather have Alien Hominid than Worms?

Ah, ratings eh?

Not to worry! More maps and voice packs and such are being released separately, as Team17 couldn't fit it into 50mb!

But new weapons aren't being added; Spadge was very clear about that!

Then the game will always be a mediocre 7. All the new levels and voice packs won't change that. And I'm sick of all the idiots that say more weapons means less strategy. It requires strategy to avoid getting hit by the big weapons. But just as glaring in their ommission are items like parachutes and bungee cords. Worms HD feels like a demo of a better game.

But Team17 don't decide the pricing of downloadable content, Microsoft do, as they are the publishers of the title and said content.



General rule: if you know you're doing something wrong, don't do it. The edit button is there for a reason.

Double posting isnt wrong.. its just annoyingm which is why I apologized. Geez :(

Anyway, if MS decide the price then how come:


Ben Ward, Community and Web lead at Bizarre Creations, has revealed the developer originally wanted the cult classic Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved to be given away free on Xbox Live Arcade as "a gift to hardcore gamers".

In an interview with IGN, Ward said that Bizarre didn't really view Arcade as a way to make money and initally the dev was keen to make the action-packed shooter a free download. However, due to restrictions Bizarre was forced to charge for the game, although insisted Microsoft put it out in Live's lowest price bracket - 400 MS points.

You can read the full interview with Ward, in which he also reveals more details about Bizarre's upcoming Xbox Live Arcade game, Boom Boom Rocket, here.

Now that both Bizarre and Besthesda saying that they decided the price. Yet you guys are saying its MS. Sounds like you're getting screwed.

Double posting isnt wrong.. its just annoyingm which is why I apologized. Geez :(

Anyway, if MS decide the price then how come:



Now that both Bizarre and Besthesda saying that they decided the price. Yet you guys are saying its MS. Sounds like you're getting screwed.

I think MS decides what is and what is not paid content. Team 17 might be able to suggest prices, but the final say on what content people have to pay for belongs to MS. At least that's what I'm getting out of the whole thing.

I honestly don't understand all the hate this game is getting, I just hope that its doing good sales wise. Maybe its because I haven't played worms since part 2 on the PC but the game the way it is is perfectly fine.

It's still fun, funny and strategic.

Hate? Where is it getting hate?

People seem to be really enjoying it. Sales wise, it's performing strongly... the reviews are ok (although not earth shattering). I think people are confusing it for full-price product (its 2 London Pints to buy!) which is crackers. Some feel good will come when the DLC arrives, too.

No hate here.

And 2 London pints? Good grief.. the south is still expensive I see.

How is it selling btw? Are you allowed to tell us?

We're awaiting confirmation before we can do any press on it.

It was no.1 XBLA title and no.7 most played on live (including ALL 360 titles) after 3 days.

hate as in alot of people complaining about the missing weapons, and that is internet message board complaints, as Ive yet to hear a single complaint while im on live. I think the current weapon set is fine the way it is

Glad to see that it is doing good though.

EDIT: maybe hate was too strong of a word :(

We're awaiting confirmation before we can do any press on it.

It was no.1 XBLA title and no.7 most played on live (including ALL 360 titles) after 3 days.

That's nice to know. I posted this in another thread, but it died shortly after.


Even more than what the actual sales are, I'd love to know how you guys are doing with sales. For example, are you making more money per sale of Worms XBLA (developed by Team 17 and published by Team 17), than you did with each sale of Worms Armageddon (developed by Team 17 and published by Microprose)?

Is XBLA really a good way for smaller developers like yourselves to publish a game, and really make some good money from it? Do you guys see yourselves making more games for XBLA?


Any chance you could comment on these questions? I'm quite interested.

Well, I wouldn't count ourselves as "small developers" these days :) We have a studio of 75 staff, a 16,500sq.ft office and an annual running cost of about $5-6m! XBLA is just a small aspect of what we actually do.

To answer your question, XBLA is a terrific opportunity for smaller indy developers but the opportunities are quickly closing since the service is getting pretty tightly subscribed.

We can't reveal sales information just yet.

Are you saying theres only a certain amount of developers allowed to use XBLA?

That'd be a shame.

No, the process and opportunity is open to all, but there is limited 'bandwidth' in terms of titles that can be published and the bar is raising all the time.

Spadge, can i ask you something? Do you think we have to wait longer for new DL Content or is there something coming in the near Future? Greetz from Germany

There's a submission procedure to follow. We're hopeful DLC won't be much longer, should be in the next week or two (note: that's "not much longer" in our world).

There's a submission procedure to follow. We're hopeful DLC won't be much longer, should be in the next week or two (note: that's "not much longer" in our world).

Thanks, that sounds good !