How do you feel about nostalgia?
Do you play games to have fun? O do you play just to experience something new and then move on? For the former, do you mind if a game is all about fun and easily enjoyable scenarios you would like to revisit? Or do you prefer games that are cold, calculating, and consumable like a typical Hollywood blockbuster?
Did you know that Knack was designed by Sony Computer Entertainment Japan? Did you know that it was directed by renown designer and hardware architect Mark Cerny? Did you also know that Knack represents a complete throwback to the first two Crash Bandicoot games on the original PlayStation, with a strong focus on beat 'em up gameplay?
Do you like beat 'em up games? Do you enjoy beat 'em up games with light platforming elements, some challenging but doable puzzles, and a delightfully well thought out and directed story?
How do you feel about games that borrow colorful themes and elements from kid-friendly cartoons and classic Japanese media such as Mega-Man? Do you like Mega-Man and his creator Dr. Light?
Is it enticing playing a game where there are traces of Warhammer 40,000 in the first boss fight, while also opening up a wealth of challenge in both gameplay and concept?
Do boss fights need to be entertaining, and if they are, is it enough to make you want to keep playing?
Coupling entertaining bosses with sprinkles of linear platforming and hints of original character properties seems fun, no?
Are graphics important?
If graphics are important, do rich atmospheres and an enticing palette of uniquely designed characters, along with fresh enemies and environments, make up for less-than-stellar textures and aliasing?
Could some graphical flaws be overlooked if the game managed to keep you visually engaged by changing up some gameplay elements, such as imitating old Japanese Godzilla movies with giant monsters tearing up the city, and allow for players to join in on the fun?
Would you be willing to ignore objects and in-game debris clearing up less than five seconds after they're created due to all the physics-based destruction that players can roll out when they super-size into a Hulk-sized Knack?
Speaking of sizes... how does a character with varying degrees of size and girth tickle your fancy? Do you like being challenged by playing a small and fragile character, who sometimes gets to participate in nail-biting stealth segments as a glass-based incarnation of himself? Is it equally challenging, in your mind, to be able to destroy enemies who fire lasers, lob bombs, use shields and attempt to capture you while you tower over them as a 15-foot tall monster?
Are degrees of difficulty a thing that holds any interest to you?
Do games that become tedious on easy settings upset you? Do games that vastly change on the harder settings – offering a more ruthless and unforgiving AI – appeal to your tastes? Do you like a game that scales from being child's play to a refreshing sense of challenging interactive entertainment?
Would you be disappointed to find out that – despite being a fun beat 'em up – the game can sometimes become a bit tiresome as a beat 'em up?
Would you also be disappointed to find out that – despite being a fun beat 'em up – Knack is unable to pick up or use any of the enemy's weapons?
Could you live with a game that had some really standout moments but they were sometimes used far and few between, like the gliding sequences briefly sprinkled through Chapter 8 and the final level?
Should games resonate positively enough for you that you would want to play them again?
If a game is worth replaying would like it to contain additional items, characters and abilities for said characters, to unlock?
Would you find a game more appealing to know that littered throughout each level are additional artifacts and items to help unlock even more content, giving you a reason to replay the game multiple times over?
Do you find that co-op makes a game more replayable? Would you find that a game has more value with a drop-in and drop-out co-op mode that also works in tandem with the PS Vita's Remote Play?
If there were a major criticism for the game and it was that the main character, Knack, talks a bit too much and sounds too intimidating – even though, with all due respect, the voice actor does a superb job nonetheless – turn you off from buying or be willing to play the game?
Would the value of the game increase in your eyes if you learned that throughout the eight to ten hour gameplay experience, there are no glitches or obvious technical flaws?
Do games working right out of the box from start to finish feel like you're getting your money's worth?
Are you drawn to games with strong sleeper-hit appeal and cult-classic propensity?
Despite seeming like a late PS3 title, would a game that evolves into what you might classify as a “next-generation” game something you feel would justify your purchase?
And in light of everything you've been tasked to question, at the $60 price tag – and containing nothing particularly innovative nor anything remarkably standout – does a game steeped in nostalgia and harkening back to a bygone era, with an endearing story and an infectious set of characters and gameplay elements, seem like a fun game to you? Well... does it?
Staff Writer at CinemaBlend.
Your Daily Blend of Entertainment News
Thank you for signing up to CinemaBlend. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.