EyePet: Move Edition Review
- 1
- 2
Sony might take this as a back-handed compliment, but the revamped version of EyePet is probably the most successful title in the Move launch line-up. Considering that EyePet Move is a spruced-up version of a product that was released almost a year ago, and given that it's not actually a game at all, this might be cause for concern - especially if you were hoping that we were about to enter some new Golden Age of motion control gaming. Still, if you (or more likely, your child) is in the market for a new virtual pet, you're in luck. Eleven months on from the original release, this is still the best monkey-cat-hybrid simulation that money can buy.
The EyePet is more or less a direct descendent of all those Catz and Dogz games (or should that be gamez?) that surfaced in the mid '90s. Both series were massively popular with gamers who were either unable or unwilling to deal with the expense, responsibility or omnipresent faeces that accompanies real-world pet ownership. In essence, the player used their mouse to interact with a cartoon mutt or feline as they pranced around their computer screen. You fed the animal, groomed it, and teased it with toys. As an overall experience it was somewhat lacking in gameplay, but this had little impact on the kids who flocked to stores in their millions.
Last year SCE London Studios returned to the formula using some rather impressive augmented reality tricks. What we have here is a mildly revamped version of the same game, adapted to make use of PlayStation Move. You set up the PlayStation Eye in front of your TV so that you're watching a live feed of your living room floor, then when you look at the screen, you'll suddenly find you've got a new visitor charging about the room. The EyePet himself is cutesy little bugger, a four-legged furball with cat-like agility, a puppy's playfulness, and the face of a particularly good-looking monkey. With time and effort - and, I suspect, an awful lot of market research - the developers have successfully created the ultimate Frankenstein's pet. Sony deserves some credit for this, as it's actually quite hard to blend animals in this way (trust me, I have a lifetime ban from London Zoo).
Rather than being a fully-fledged game, the EyePet is really an AI-driven toy that you play with via your television. You clear a large space in front of your screen, sit on the floor and then start to fool about with your new friend: you can lean over and "stroke" him, wiggle your fingers to get his attention, or call him over by tapping the ground. You might feel a bit daft at first, running your fingers through thin air, but before long everything feels totally natural. You learn to watch the screen and not your empty room, and soon you'll be totally absorbed in whatever your Pet is up to. The technology behind this project is hugely impressive: the creature's movements are detailed and extremely well-animated, and whatever he's doing it always looks as if he's actually moving across your floor. As a result, it's easy to believe that there's actually something there - a crucial achievement that guarantees the product's overall success.
Sensibly, Sony has resisted the urge to make the Move controller a mandatory part of the action at all times. Hands-on actions like stroking and coaxing your monkey-thing are still conducted with your real-world digits, while the controller is used whenever a toy or tools comes into play. If you're washing your animal, it can be used as a showerhead, a shampoo bottle or a hairdryer; if you're doing a spot of gardening, it turns into a watering can. Originally these devices were controlled via a special piece of coloured card that the player had to hold up to the camera; while that system worked well enough, there's no doubt that things look and feel far more satisfying with the Move controller. The wand's 360 degree sensing also comes into play here, allowing you to shower your pet at exactly the angle you want. This doesn’t make a huge difference to the experience, but it does make your interactions seem a bit more precise and tangible, and thus easier to believe in.
There are a total of 60 challenges to play through with your furball, from 10 pin bowling to play fights to games of Snap, and at any given moment you can take pics or videos using the in-built camera tool. Many of the challenges have multiple score targets to beat, unlocking new toys and clothes for your creature. As you work through the tasks you'll unlock new ones, but Sony has wisely stuck a limit on how many you can open up in the course of a day - so it'll take players some time to see everything the game has to offer.



Highest Rated Comment
mikejosh1978
User Comments
Karlius
mydeaddog
I simply don't see the value in the term of "average". It's ambiguous, and therefore misleading. Surely what you want to know is how good or bad a given game is?
Where I agree with Steg is that on a 10-point scale, the lower half of the ratings essentially amount to "how bad is it?". If a game gets four or less, most people will probably avoid it anyway. You might then argue that this makes the entire scale flawed, but i'd disagree. Why? Because the top half of the scale essentially amounts to "how good is it?" - which balances everything out. The crucial difference is that people care more about the scores in the top half - because it's top-half-rated games that they're going to buy.
For scores of six and above, it's relatively clear what each number stands for. My personal interpretation would be something along the lines of:
6 = A game that you might consider buying, but with a clear understanding about what you're getting. There are flaws here, but the game isn't without merit. You'd probably rent a 6, or get it a bargain price if you were curious about it.
7 = Good. A solid, decent game - but one that might have been great if it'd had a little more "oomph".
8= Really good. The kind of game you'd pick up in launch week. Not exactly an all-time classic, but a great game nonetheless.
9= Excellent - one of the best games on its platform.
10= One of the very best games on any platform. A highlight of its gaming generation.
I think that's perfectly fair. You'd be hard pushed to find any industry where 5/10 equates to a recommendation, and a game like Mafia II (to continue with the example) is clearly worth recommending. If you want to argue that a 5-point scale would be more economical, i'd strongly agree with you. We've talked about switching, but for the time being we're sticking with the 10-point setup.
At the end of the day, there's only so much that a number can tell you. If all you read is the score at the end then you may as well stick to metacritic or some other aggregator. Critics are paid to write words, not numbers.
El-Dev
7= Average
8= Good
9= Really Good
10= Excellent
I'm a bit confused as to why they haven't got "Average" assigned to a number, but Neon has said the problem could be defining an average game, but the VG scoring policy describes averageness to me.
I don't really see 7 being the industry average as a problem really, it all depends on the site and most of them explain their scoring system. Although the other site I use for reviews use 5/10 which has caused some amusing reactions in the past few weeks to some of their review scores.
As for buying average games, if I'm a fan of the series or think I'll like it I will purchase them. The VG description of a 7 game; "Definitely worth a look if you're a fan of the genre, licence or have had your interest piqued by a particularly well implemented game feature. These games won't set anyone's world on fire, will certainly do many things wrong, but will have plenty of redeeming features to make parting with your hard earned cash a good decision." Is quite a good description of average to me.
MafiaII got 7 here and the more I play it the more I notice how good it is.
altaranga@ CheekyLee
I think the scale (roughly as Steg has mentioned above but is slightly broader imo) is actually quite well established, and whilst it might not be fair/mathematical it does have perceived value to those who read and use them.
It would be nice to have a definitive rating system, but I do not see a great need for one.
mikejosh1978
CheekyLee@ mydeaddog
Many sites have reviewed one of my personal favourite games Earth Defense Force 2017 as an average game, and in so many objective criteria it is less than average. But, the unquantifiable "fun" variable pushes the game way above average to me. I got it for a bargain price, but had I played it before taking the plunge I would have been happy paying full price for the title.
I have long used my own scale for scoring games; Buy this game, Play/Pirate/Rent this game, Forget this game. However, I would advocate replacing the industry standard '7 = average' with '5 = average', or better yet just drop from a ten-point scale to a 5-point scale.
mydeaddog
I could talk (well, write) for a long, long time about the whole score-scale thing, and I totally hear what you're saying. We argue about this kind of stuff often, but for the time being we're sticking to the system we've got.
I'll say this though: i've yet to hear anyone give me a good definition of what an "average" game is. That word means different things to different people, and even in a mathematical context there's a huge difference between a mean, median and mode.
You say that 7=bad on our scale, but if you compare Mafia II (to give one example) to the majority of games that are released - not just the ones that get lots of mainstream coverage, but all games - then you'd probably agree that it's considerably better than "average". It's a good game; not a wonderful one, but a good one. I played it from start to finish, and despite a few issues I had, I enjoyed it. If someone asked me if they should bother playing it, I would tell them yes - but I'd also ask whether they'd played Red Dead, Mass Effect, Mario Galaxy 2, or any of the other brilliant stuff that's been out lately.
I'lll have to stop there as it's late, and as I said I could bore you to death on this subject for ages. I'll ask you this, however - and anyone who's interested can chuck in their two cents: would you ever, ever pay full cash for something you perceived to be "average"?
Personally, I'd go to see an "average" film or perhaps an "average" band, but I'd be very, very unlikely to buy an average album or DVD. Perhaps that's a bad example, as nobody buys hard media anymore... Would you buy an "average" mobile phone? Do you feel happy and comfortable wearing "average" clothes?
(Those are genuine questions, by the way. I'm not being rhetorical.)
mydeaddog
It's an interesting idea, but one that raises several problems. For a start, there's an issue of consistency: if we did that for one game like this, we'd have to do it for all of them, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.
More to the point, it's not the kid's job to review the game - it's mine. I'm sure there are children who think that Bratz: The Movie is the shining pinnacle of cinema, but does that qualify them to be a film critic? In a way, perhaps it does - but you wouldn't ask the same kid to give an appraisal of, say, Oldboy.
My view is that you keep reading particular sites or reviewers because you get a feel for their taste and critical opinions; that's how I decide who to read, at any rate. I'll read several people's views, and that will generally give me an idea of what to expect. It's impossible for anyone to be "right" all the time, a) because taste is subjective, and b) because it's bloody hard to be right. Take it from me - I gave Fable II Pub Games and 8 (pretty much my first review for the site, but I still feel sheepish about it).
So while I actually think it would be quite helpful to get young kids to give their opinion on the EyePet, it's ultimately the reviewer's job to guage the merit of the game - however weird it may be for them to do it.
Karlius
It must be very difficult to review a game when you don't come under the target audience. You have done a very good job as always though Neon.
Haven't you guys got any young nieces, nephews or friends with kids you could introduce to the games to gage their reaction or attention span? Think you may get a more rounded view then.
But as Mike points out asking people for £20 to upgrade just for Move Support is a bad tactic. I'm with an update or patch even if it was £5 it would be more acceptable than a full £20. Let's hope Sony are planning something like this.
SexyJams
Personally I can't see it being anywhere near an eight at all, but like Altaranga said, I'm not it's target audience.
I think it takes a good journalist to give subjective opinion on something completely unappealing to them, so well done Neon.
mikejosh1978
Stegosaurus-Guy-II
For you it seems to be...
10 = Really good
9 = Good
8 = Ok
7 = Bad
Anything else = Sucks
5 should be the 'ok' score.
altaranga
And it in this regard that I have a lot of respect for you gaming journos. How on earth do you go about critiquing a game which is actually "a doll, not a game"? Hats off to you Neon. This review was never going to tempt me to part with my money, mainly due to the fact that the concept is as appealing to me as a dinner party with Janet Street-Porter, but I can appreciate the effort which has gone into its writing.