Naughty Bear Review

By Dan Pearson Published 29 June, 2010

Nursery crime.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Naughty Bear is a 12, according to PEGI.

In it, you can grill faces, eviscerate with swords, fatally electrocute, detonate with land mines and drive animals insane with fear to the point where they'll commit suicide. Thing is, you're not doing it to people, but bears - and cuddly toy ones rather than actual flesh and blood ursines, so it's presumably OK for 12-year-old kids.

It's not something I want to focus on here, and actually it's not something I'm really sure where I stand on, but it's an interesting point that changing the skins on the models which you torture and murder in games makes such a difference to the perceived emotional impact. If you're in any doubt about that, maybe read a few of the more heated responses to Modern Warfare 2's airport outing.

Naughty Bear is a tremendously violent game. You play as the titular teddy, hell-bent on revenge after he's labelled as the Lindsay Lohan of the bears' island - a dangerous social embarrassment who needs to be kept out of the loop for the good of everybody else. Oh, and eventually hunted down and killed. His revenge takes the form of murder, naturally, earning points as he slaughters his fellow picnickers in new and interesting ways.

'Naughty Bear' Screenshot 1

Visually, Naughty Bear is actually quite nicely put together, with a cutesy, toybox style.

For example, Naughty can grab a number of melee weapons, from sticks to ninja swords, and set about the island's inhabitants with them, beating them to death by hammering the attack button, or exercising a little more 'subtlety' by sneaking up behind them to break out the weapon's unique finishing move. If you're feeling particularly elaborate you can let them limp away when you're nearly done, allowing the other bears to see what happens to your enemies and gradually raising their levels of terror and paranoia.

You can also destroy or sabotage items such as barbecues or power supplies for extra points, smashing them for a bigger short-term gain or disabling them so you lie in wait for a hapless bear to come and fix them. When they're busy doing so, you can sneak out of the woods, where Naughty is inexplicably completely invisible to anyone but ninja bears, and perform either a contextual kill using the object they're fixing or scaring them with a boo, which will up their tension levels until they finally reach breaking point and commit suicide.

Bears can also escape the island using a boat or a car (unless you destroy them), or use one of the island's phones to call the cops. Let either of these things happen and back-up will soon arrive, upping the risk but also increasing the potential for point-scoring - cops are viable targets for terror and eventual 'defluffification', too.

'Naughty Bear' Screenshot 2

Repeating the same attacks or scare tactics will see them lose effect, ironically.

More suffering equals more score, with a multiplier building alongside the carnage and gradually ticking down over time. For example, all of the bears on a level can be wiped out pretty quickly by setting a few mantraps on paths, waiting for targets to stumble into them and finishing them off with a one-hit kill: efficient, but not particularly stylish. If you want the big points then you'll need to toy with your victims for a while, using scares, destruction and other bears to unravel their tiny, fluffy minds and force them into suicide. Sadism, it turns out, returns more than just its own reward.

When a level's objectives are completed or Naughty fails irrevocably, the score is banked (albeit with a 70 per cent penalty for failure), counting towards a grand total which unlocks various costumes, achievements, episodes and levels. Costumes and hats affect Naughty's stats, or give him a starting weapon or special ability, like blending in with the otherwise instantly hostile bears. New levels open up new parts of bear island to explore and frolic dangerously in.

Except they don't, really. There are only three environments in Naughty Bear, each of which consists of two fairly small sections and Naughty's hut. These three environments are stretched out to seven episodes, each of which features a violence-ripe sitcom like a mayoral election or the invention of a race of android-bears, with a ring-leader who's usually the ultimate target for 'punishment'.

New levels are actually usually just new challenges set in each environment, with occasional batches of new enemies added to spice things up. Because these areas are small, and not particularly interesting, they quickly become as predictable as chip-sick on a seafront Saturday morning.

There are seven different challenge types: speed, kill, insanity, invisible, untouchable, friendly and top hat, meaning that Naughty must be as fast, violent, mentally cruel, stealthy, careful, friendly or, er, hatist as possible. They're an attempt to stretch an already paper-thin concept way beyond its natural breaking point, but serve only to highlight the incredibly one-dimensional nature of the game. All that most of these modes really offer is a chance to perform the same incredibly repetitive set of tasks again, with a few restrictions on what you're able to do to entertain yourself as you slog through them.

'Naughty Bear' Screenshot 3

the Nut-shot: effective even against creatures with no semblance of genitalia.

Once you've played Naughty Bear for an hour or so, you'll have seen pretty much everything it's got to offer. Sure, there's some sniggering amusement to be had the first time you tip a squealing teddy into a giant cake-mixer, or grind his face into a turntable, but the next 400 times? Not so much.

But hey! Here are some zombie bears, no, wait... zombears, who are a bit tougher, and immune to insanity! It's a whole new game! No, it's really not. It's the same, puerile, shallow, shonky effort it always was, except now the bears are a bit green and have stuff missing.

Developer Artificial Mind and Movement, who also made the teen-targeted Wet, tries to keep things interesting by having live leaderboards, but it's really only of use as an indicator of who has the highest boredom threshold or borderline psychotic tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 each month were interviewed under very bright lights by Scotland Yard and questioned about whether they've killed many cats with hammers recently.

'Naughty Bear' Screenshot 4

Optional sub-quests can be completed for extra points, but they're about as interesting as a nasty headache.

Multiplayer is present, but is again so formulaic and poorly executed as to not be worth its own while. A few thinly-veiled modes masquerade as teddy-themed excitement, basically encompassing capture the flag, oddball and juggernaut rip-offs, as well as a weird jelly-collecting shenanigans which pits one player as Naughty against the rest as they try to make the most delicious jelly. Never has gelatinous desert predicated so much gratuitous violence. Or boredom.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not remotely prudish about videogame violence. I'll spend as many hours gleefully attaching limpet mines to pensioners in Bad Day at Eastbourne III as the next man, but only if it's actually enjoyable to do so. Naughty Bear is frustrating, boring and intensely annoying, from the suicidal-sounding 'comedy' announcer to the game-breaking crash bugs, which apparently affect both platforms, and took all of 15 minutes of play to lock our office Xbox 360 into a hard reset.

Naughty Bear sold itself to a lot of customers by pretending to be adult, gritty and brutal. In fact, it's childish, facile and more pointless than manning the phone-lines for the Rob Green retirement fund. Avoid at all costs, or at least wait until it's inevitably slashed in price if you're really desperate for some sledgehammer humour and cheap Gamerscore. Until then, play a little bit of this or this, for free, far more enjoyable executions of what this game was presumably trying to achieve.

4 / 10

505 Games has told Eurogamer that it's aware of the crash bugs and is working with developer A2M on a solution. "A title update has already been prepared and is going through QA submission as we speak. We are urgently working with the console manufacturers to expedite the release of the update," we were told.

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Pearson

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Pearson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (81) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • muscleblade #1 2 years ago

    4/10 seems spot on.

  • peterfll #2 2 years ago

    When I initially watched the trailers for this I thought it was an Live/PSN downloadable. Perhaps it would have faired better had it been.

  • Paperghost #3 2 years ago

    oh dear, game was reviewed by grumpy bear!

    Joking aside, I actually think it's rather enjoyable but you *have* to have a thing for hi scores or you may well get bored quickly. In terms of how long it'll take you to not only open up the various levels but start to grab the platinum trophies, I've been playing it non stop since Saturday and am (I think) only up to about 32%. Then there's the costume unlocks which will take a long time (and many of the costumes give special abilities, like being able to walk through the crowds until it all kicks off - very useful for some of the "challenge" stages).

    Also have to disagree with the idea that the additional game modes "stretch an already paper-thin concept way beyond its natural breaking point, but serve only to highlight the incredibly one-dimensional nature of the game." Even the most basic one - "Kill everyone as quick as you can" - is brutal to get through, as the time limit is so tight. And the stealth challenges (along with the ones where you're not allowed to be hit) require quite a bit of thought to get through.

    in terms of level size, they do add a few extra bits as you get to stage 5 and up. however, given the nature of the game (replaying levels to get the bigger score) i think that might have harmed the idea of being able to go back in and replay in short bursts if they were overlong but YMMV with that one.

  • lucky_jim #4 2 years ago

    Damn, I was really hoping this would be good!

  • Open_Huffy #5 2 years ago

    Not sure I would want my kid getting a bear (cute or otherwise) to kick another bear in the nuts.

    Also not sure whats going on with your CMS on the second page eurogamer, but you need to move your 'Extra' div out of the 'Main' div :p

  • Svalbaard #6 2 years ago

    Cool. Any excuse to go play some vintage Spectrum games...

  • Der_tolle_Emil #7 2 years ago

    This game actually had potential but it's just trying way too hard. All I can think of is Conker's Bad Fur Day, which I found absolutely brilliant. Naughty Bear seems to have confused humor with senseless violence and obviously that didn't work. Too bad because I don't think we will see Conker again in the foreseeable future :(

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #8 2 years ago

    Apologies for the formatting snafu. Fixed.

  • Bloke1182 #9 2 years ago

    Semi-off topic: Hurrah for Jack the Nipper! I'm still looking for what I think was a Your Sinclair or Crash Mag tape that had a christmas version of Monty Mole on it. And a super cool sidescrolling shooter starring a jetpacked astronaut called Hyper whatever. The last game had you looking at a radar of sorts whilst shooting various enemies coming from the left and right. Anyone remember that?

  • uzivatel #10 2 years ago

    @Der_tolle_Emil: Speaking of Conker, LIVE and Reloaded got the same 4/10 and the sales were not exactly great. That said the game was fun to play, too bad I can not finish the game on my VGA screen.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 08:36

  • Pastici #11 2 years ago

    Like peterfll said, it sounded like it would have been more sucessful as a XBLA/PSN game.

  • Danbojones Verified Senior Staff Writer, GamesIndustry.biz #12 2 years ago

    @Bloke1182 This one?
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 08:40

  • Blerk #13 2 years ago

    And the other one was Hyper Active.

  • MiniAmin #14 2 years ago

    This game's reception is too reliant upon the appeal of extremely violent cute animals hurting each other. If Conker's Bad Fur day wasn't released 9 years ago, perhaps this would've fared slightly better.

    /Plugs in an N64

  • gallow #15 2 years ago

    @Bloke1182 - I remember the second game you describe - it was a spectrum version/clone of Dropzone. It was on a Sinclair User Mega tape if I remember.

  • Doctor_What #16 2 years ago

    Oh god I miss Your Sinclair. That was probably the best games magazine I've ever read. Only a couple of days ago I was wondering what happened to the likes of Whistlin' Rick Wilson (singer of the song 'Hold My Hand Very Tightly (Very Tightly)') and T'zer. *sigh* Happy days. That magazine was completely hatstand.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #17 2 years ago

    uzivatel: I never understood Live and Reloaded's score. You can easily criticize the changes that were introduced in the single player campaign but it's still a really good game, especially if you haven't played the N64 original.

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #18 2 years ago

    CRASH 4 EVA

    They gave me letter of the month once. Ł40 worth of games! Which in those days was more than one.

  • siro #19 2 years ago

    Really not surprised about the score.

    I had the same idea as peterfll from the trailers: Until lately I thought this would be a downloadable game.

  • Cherub007 #20 2 years ago

    Zzap 64 was my baby. Anyone remember Oli Frey's awesome artwork? That guy was the absolute don. (I think he did CRASH, too). I seem to remember a bloke calling himself Radion Automatic got a job as a reviewer at Zzap because he wrote a really good letter, but I may be getting mixed up. The little graphics of the reviewers facial expressions, depending on what they thought of the game, were amazing too. Ah, happy days.

  • frostcircus #21 2 years ago

    You can't make a comedy game that only has one joke. This gag might've worked as a fake commercial, but anything that ran longer than about 20 seconds was always going to kill it.

    (Same deal with 'Privates,' but even 20 seconds is a push for that one.)
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 09:18

  • lucky_jim #22 2 years ago

    Not quite sure how we've ended up talking about old games magazines, but now we have, I'll point out the links for scans of various old mags that you'll find in this thread. Crash, Your Sinclair and Sinclair User included! :)

  • Bloke1182 #23 2 years ago

    Thanks Danbo and and Blerk. That was it! Played it to death. I must have a Psycho Pig UXB/Your Sinclair T shirt somewhere in the basement. Good old speccy. How I miss your loading symphonies.

  • MikkyX #24 2 years ago

    Disappointed in the reviews for this - was hoping for it to be good, so I had a new avenue through which to channel my rage. Ah well. Now I'm just angry it's below average.

  • StooMonster #25 2 years ago

    Remember 'Unclear User' from Crash #19, August 1985?

    Got Crash pulled from the shelves of WH Smiths etal because EMAP got their knickers in a twist, annoying for me an my colleagues as that was the Crash edition with the review of our first published game in it: Nodes of Yesod.

  • mingster #26 2 years ago

    Sounds gruesome. Definately not something a 12 year old should play.

  • Zerobob #27 2 years ago

    "4/10 seems spot on. "

    4/10 seems generous, considering the final paragraph of the review states "Avoid at all costs".

    Surely 0/10 or 1/10 would have been more appropriate, but I'm not going to start the old game of questioning Eurogamer's scores, no sir.

  • lucky_jim #28 2 years ago

    I remember Nodes of Yesod StooMonster, that was a top game! I think I probably came across it on a covertape a few years after it was released though. I didn't actually buy many games in the mid-to-late-80s, because SU, YS and Crash always gave away so many each month.

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #29 2 years ago

    @StooMonster Nodes of Yesod was a cool game. What a title, too.

  • brseg #30 2 years ago

    Releasing at full price forces all reviewers to be, understandably, harsh. It could've been an xbla classic at 5-10 quid, sounds like its worth a laugh, esp if multiplayer sorted out. shame.

  • StooMonster #31 2 years ago

    Thank you much. :)

    The title's hidden meaning was "Moon's testicles" or "erect knob" ... 'Nodes' as as in localised swelling / knots and 'Yesod' as in the Kabbalistic sephirot representing the Moon and sexual organs.

    We were teenagers at the time, pretentious bloody teenagers thinking back; which is why there is also a room that is a more obvious big knob too (although it was a red herring for the game).

    Sounds like Naughty Bear hasn't got much further than our single knob gag from 1985.

  • Lionheart #32 2 years ago

    Spy Vs Spy... now that's a game!!

  • JahB #33 2 years ago

    When I initially watched the trailers for this I thought it was an Live/PSN downloadable. Perhaps it would have faired better had it been.

    this. even with a 4/10 i'd have been willing to spend 10 quid on it, just for the lolz. but at full retail, you gotta be joking.

  • sneetch #34 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    Nodes of Yesod? That was a fantastic game, I loved it. Can it be purchased for PC/Wii/PS3/Xbox now?

  • Azazel #35 2 years ago

    Reminds me of that scene in The Shining. Creepy.

  • BBIAJ #36 2 years ago

    Not crashed on me once, yet...

  • Dezm0nd #37 2 years ago

    I rented this game on Friday and took it back on Monday. Waste of 6 quid, time and even a waste of the my Xbox pads durability. The best bit about this game is turning it off.

  • Doctor_What #38 2 years ago

    @StooMonster: Nice work on Nodes! It was the 80s bedroom coders like you that got me into designing my own stuff and developing properly later in life. Cheers for the inspiration :)

  • IronCladChicken #39 2 years ago

    Down with Crash - Your Sinclair FTW!
    Crash & Zapp64 were just the GameSpot/IGN's of their day.

  • metalangel #40 2 years ago

    A bit disappointed... Postal 2 remains the benchmark, I guess. Until Bad Day At Eastbourne IV comes out, that is!

    I do hope some clueless bints misguidedly buy this for their squealing brats and return later to see how they're getting on, and find little Timmy hoofing bears in the nuts and eviscerating police bears.

  • andromeda #41 2 years ago

    Nodes of Yesod, and the decent follow-up Arc of Yesod, great games. I think I got so obsessed I drew out maps for all the moon caverns :)

    The only games in which you could render enemies useless with a bog plunger.

  • StooMonster #42 2 years ago

    @Doctor_What: bedroom coders? We had flash city centre offices and everything ... including a Space Ace machine in reception, PAs, etc. and Neil Fitzmaurice was our office junior (although he was only a year younger than me) / gopher.

    Glad to inspire. =)

    @sneetch: nah, there's a bunch of rights issues ... hence all the snaps/dumps were pulled from the web.

  • muscleblade #43 2 years ago

    @Zerobob

    yeah i agree that it reads more like a 2/10 ( not a 0/10 as thats not even a score on the 1-10 scale).
    What i meant was that 4/10 seems spot on from what ive played of the game so far.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 11:25

  • RobotRocker #44 2 years ago

    I do hope some clueless bints misguidedly buy this for their squealing brats and return later to see how they're getting on, and find little Timmy hoofing bears in the nuts and eviscerating police bears.

    It's 5th in the charts this week after 505 sneaked it out. Asda hoofing it out for Ł25 probably helped.

    I read in various, neogafy, sources that originally, this was a proper "slasher" game where you played a Jason like figure brutally terrorizing and slaughtering a bunch of stupid teenagers. When the execs saw the alpha, they went nuts because there is no way they could get away with selling that sort of game and getting annihilated by the tabloids and ESRB/PEGI. So they quickly changed everything to cuddly teddy bears.

    Plus, its only something like 770MB installed. This could have been on XBLA really. What a shame, could have been a six even at 1200 points.

  • Fab4 #45 2 years ago

    I cant read the game title without thinking of the AIOTM 'Naughty Dog' sketch. :)

  • Chazmeister #46 2 years ago

    The game just sounds rather nasty and mean spirited to me, I hope it fails big time.

  • JimmyT67 #47 2 years ago

    so Ted Bundy in a teddy bear costume?

  • sickpuppysoftware #48 2 years ago

    AIOTM (sorry)

  • Bremenacht #49 2 years ago

    Same score as 'Conker: Live and Reloaded', which it reminds me of.

  • Futaba #50 2 years ago

    I guess calling it "Sociopathic Bear" doesn't have quite the same cutesy feel.

  • convercide #51 2 years ago

    I agee with Dan on this regarding the age rating. You can get drive a bear to kill himself by putting a gun to his head and blowing his brains out. It's not even censored, you see it happen. A 12 rating for that is just stupid. Just because they're bears on screen, it doesn't mean the horrific sentiment isn't still there.

  • Boomerang #52 2 years ago

    Weird. Someone, somewhere, thought this game should have been made.

    I wonder how it'll stack up beside Manhunt's (et al) complaints as soon as the usual suspects get wind of it and vocally denounce it.

  • thesonglessbird #53 2 years ago

    I was quite looking forward to this. Oh well.

  • darc #54 2 years ago

    " I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 each month were interviewed under very bright lights by Scotland Yard and questioned about whether they've killed many cats with hammers recently."

    Hahaha, I'm sufficiently concerned that a web server, somewhere, knows I've visited a site called "Naughty Bear".

  • RobotRocker #55 2 years ago

    I agee with Dan on this regarding the age rating. You can get drive a bear to kill himself by putting a gun to his head and blowing his brains out. It's not even censored, you see it happen. A 12 rating for that is just stupid. Just because they're bears on screen, it doesn't mean the horrific sentiment isn't still there.

    I think the problem is with this game, you are dealing with a satire and those are hard to give a rating to if they are being extremely subtle. With Conker, which had blood, swearing and innuendo, its a pretty solid 15/16 rating. With this, its bloodless, theres no swearing and there is no sexual references whatsoever. Malicious, sure, but a satire (though pretty ham handed, as evident by Dan's review).

    PEGI were right with the 12 really(And the ESRB with the T rating in North America amazingly enough). You cant start rating satire high just because you are uncomfortable with what it entails, and there is not enough evidence that it satisfies the 16 rating anyway.

    Would make a pretty interesting article to have a look at it in detail and consider what the "line" is.

  • convercide #56 2 years ago

    @Boomerang

    Yes, but Manhunt was an 18 rated game, which meant that technically (although in practice, idiot parents still buy murder simulators for their children then blame the game makers) only adults can play it. The controversy here will be the age rating.

    There's a huge gap between generic shooters and this. Hell, there's a huge gap between GTA and this. In GTA, you don't have to kill innocent people, in this it seems positively encouraged. You get a higher score from forced suicides? What the hell? I'm usually all for game developers to make games that push the boat out a bit. Mainly because there are age guidelines that should be followed for the people buying and playing the games. But this is just stupid. It's like they're hoping the controversy will net them a few sales, mainly because the review scores aren't.

    @Robot Rocker

    :/

    I'd hardly class this as satire.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 15:39

  • RobotRocker #57 2 years ago

    I'd hardly class this as satire.

    Well, its a lot more blatant in casting you as the sociopath who kills everything while other games make it a lot more contrived and ridiculous. Plus, its the ultimate, macho "Kill everything that wronged you" sociopath revenge fantasy people engage in other games like Saints Row 2, but using cutesy teddy bears to act it out.

    I'd say it plants itself on the side of satire in a big way.

    Also, its probably the fact that 505 are selling it at a reduced price that has been getting it up the charts alongside its admittedly clever online ad campaigns. You can get it as low as Ł25. It beat that new Transformers game even.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 15:59

  • smelly #58 2 years ago

    Im always amazed by comments like:

    >4/10 seems spot on.

    From people who havent actually played said game..

  • Machetazo #59 2 years ago

    "You get a higher score from forced suicides?"

    If a bear's dead, you can't earn any more points from it. So, no. That causes your combo to end.
    On any point of monotony, anything's likely to be momotonous, if you've no interest in the basic idea. The question then, ought to become - what does the developer do, to alleviate that? Well, they have the other character NPCs roaming about doing their own thing. You can't be sure they will be at a place at any particular time. You don't just go about killing, that's not the aim. It's like a giant game of...Mouse Trap (ish!) All sorts of hazards can befall the players, but the game ends, once they're all defeated. (or the trap falls).

    The devs add all kinds of costumes, that vary how you could approach your task, (there's different weapons and points to interact with in the environment), along with the outcome once you start messing about, and there's a multiplayer suite, that you can play to party like it's 2002, and all can wear whatever costumes, which is fun. But, you're either going to get on with the concept, or not, and this inspires the scores...
    You can easily harken NB's multi to the likes of Q1DM. It's nothing more than run around, shoot whoever, and it's themed and there's variants, but if that proves to be fun, then I think that type of thing is ok. It's straight-forward, wysiwyg gameplay that I like to see, every so often.
    The SP's a big sandbox. Seeing as it's clear as day, that that's what is being offered (a hi-score challenge), to complain about that concept, seems wrong. If it was being presented badly, or was technically shoddy for instance, then that's something else. (and they've said they've worked on a patch to fix early issues).

    The review's fine.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 16:10

  • Machetazo #60 2 years ago

    "In GTA, you don't have to kill innocent people, in this it seems positively encouraged."

    But, hey, in GTA a little collateral damage can easily be overlooked, right convercide. It's all fun! Are you concerned when the innocent bystander gets blasted across the street, after you've casually launched a rocket into the building he happened to be strolling past, or the van that was thrown in to the air sending people screaming, or worse? I doubt it, because GTA can be good fun. As, I suspect can be Naughty Bear. You'd have more of a point in the case of Manhunt, but here, we're talking the equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon, in execution. (no pun intended)
    It's no more visceral, or violent than the Itchy & Scratchy segments on the Simpsons.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 16:34

  • convercide #61 2 years ago

    @Robot Rocker
    The bear doing minorly offensive things like putting a bucket of water over a door is satire. A bear killing other bears is a homage. It seems to lack the irony associated with satire. How many 12 year olds do you know that can understand satire anyway? Especially when the target audience for this 'satire' is supposed to be 18+ year olds who have played the other games.

    @Machetazo
    Yes I'm aware it causes the combo to end, but it also does generate a huge point bonus so plausibly can be used to get a higher score at the end of a combo so my point still stands. It still doesn't justify a visual representation of suicide.

    EDIT: As for the GTA comment, the fact GTA IV is fun is debatable. ;) But seriously yes it's shocking, but it's an 18 rated game. Hopefully the target audience is mature enough to understand the consequences of collateral damage.
    Edited by 2 at 29/06/10 @ 17:01

  • 00.00.01 #62 2 years ago

    4/10
    Guess I'll get my wee niece 'FairyTale Fights' then. Also 4/10.
    Maybe this concept needs reviewing.

  • RobotRocker #63 2 years ago

    The bear doing minorly offensive things like putting a bucket of water over a door is satire. A bear killing other bears is a homage. It seems to lack the irony associated with satire. How many 12 year olds do you know that can understand satire anyway? Especially when the target audience for this 'satire' is supposed to be 18+ year olds who have played the other games.

    A bear putting a bucket of water over the door is slapstick. The satire is the use of what we term to be innocent and childish symbols to engage in the sociopath fantasies that are normally the bread and butter of videogames. Now, the 12 year old audience might not get it, but its a bonus for an older audience. But does it mean it should be rated higher because of this? Is it breaking the guidelines enough to justify it?

    Maybe we should put the question to PEGI.

  • convercide #64 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker
    I wasn't aware that slapstick and satire were mutually exclusive...

    Yes it clearly is breaking those guidelines because a humanoid putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger is not suitable viewing for a 12 year old and if PEGI have seen that and think that it's ok, then there is something completely skewed about their morality.

    Your argument is flawed. You state it's satire as a defence but the point still stands about the morality of a forced suicide. It's wrong to let a 12 year old walk into a store and be able to buy a game where that happens. No matter if it's slapstick, satire or whatever.

    No matter how you paint it, a 12 year old controlling an in-game avatar and being able making that avatar scare another avatar into suicide is NOT right. Especially when that suicide happens on screen.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 18:07

  • RobotRocker #65 2 years ago

    I wasn't aware that slapstick and satire were mutually exclusive...

    You might do well to watch Dr Strangelove or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb. One of the most bitter and subversive satirical comedies ever made and at the same time one of the greatest performances of slapstick comedy in film history.

    Now Naughty Bear isn't even close to a work of genius like Dr.Strangelove. But satire and slapstick can be mutually exclusive.

    the point still stands about the morality of a forced suicide. It's wrong to let a 12 year old walk into a store and be able to buy a game where that happens. No matter if it's slapstick, satire or whatever.

    Unfortunately, I couldn't get a good video. But here is part of the ending of classic warner bros cartoon "Ballot Box Bunny" from 1950

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=s_mr9zU99oU (The unedited ending has Bugs miss, and a charred and blacked Sam expresses his dislike for that Rabbit)

    Suicide as a punchline has existed for years in cartoons (The Simpsons has certainly used it a couple of times). And at 12, a child, who is nearly at the teenage stage, can quite comfortably tell the difference between reality and entertainment. I don't think there was complaints regarding the bomber and nuke functions in Lemmings back in the day and those were the definition of forced suicide (Since you can command them to suicide at any time). Plus, from the evidence in the trailers for Naughty Bear, you don't force a suicide, but an AI character may panic and choose to off themselves if you scare them enough. Which isn't exactly putting a gun in their hands and telling them to do it as you imply.

    Its an interesting debate, but I think PEGI has it right this time. It's clearly cartoonish and satirical, an educated child would be able to tell the difference and precedent has been set in film, TV and videogames before.

    By all means though, a proper debate on where the "Line" is would be welcome.

  • convercide #66 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker
    I own it on DVD.

    Now Naughty Bear isn't even close to a work of genius like Dr.Strangelove. But satire and slapstick can be mutually exclusive.

    Yes of course they can be but again that isn't the issue here. That is a completely moot point. Let's not skirt around the issue by resorting to circular reasoning.

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=s_mr9zU99oU (The unedited ending has Bugs miss, and a charred and blacked Sam expresses his dislike for that Rabbit)

    Does it show Bugs Bunny at the point of suicide? Not it does not. The screen has faded to black. The insinuation is there but you don't actually witness Bugs Bunny firing the shot. Which you actually see in Naughty Bear. You see the bear die by his own paw.

    but an AI character may panic and choose to off themselves if you scare them enough. Which isn't exactly putting a gun in their hands and telling them to do it as you imply.

    Does that still makes it acceptable for a 12 year old to watch it? Does that logic still mean it's ok for it to happen in the game? There is no justification for the suicide. None.

    I don't think there was complaints regarding the bomber and nuke functions in Lemmings back in the day

    You're bringing Lemmings into this? Seriously? A bunch of barely animated pixels 'exploding' compared to a humanoid bear rendered in 3D putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger. Lemmings is the counter argument here? If in Lemmings it zoomed in to a cartoon of them strapping a bomb to their waist and screaming before dying, then I think it'd be different. The goal of Lemmings was to get them to the exit. Not to terrorise other Lemmings.

    And at 12, a child, who is nearly at the teenage stage, can quite comfortably tell the difference between reality and entertainment.

    Yes they can, but does that mean you have to show this particular image to them?

    I'm pretty sure the line here was crossed when the player starts a chain of events which cause a humanoid bear to visibly commit suicide.

    I could go on about this but I'm pretty sure the comments section on the Eurogamer review isn't the place.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 23:32

  • RobotRocker #67 2 years ago

    @ convercide

    While I cant show the full cartoon since the only other links are various dodgy Russian sites that might inflict fair EG viewers to spyware. But the events of the cartoon do drive Bugs Bunny to consider suicide as a punchline to a cartoon long joke.

    If in Lemmings it zoomed in to a cartoon of them strapping a bomb to their waist and screaming before dying, then I think it'd be different. The goal of Lemmings was to get them to the exit. Not to terrorise other Lemmings.

    You could still force them to suicide. Which is still the crux of your argument, Cartoonish humanoids forced to suicide on command by the player. Pixels or not, its the same argument you wish to engage with. Maybe you can argue for Lemmings 3D or Team 17's update as well?

    Suicide can be devastating in reality. But, I will still laugh at the suicide booths in Futurama or the various jokes regarding it in the Simpsons as though it is one of the darkest elements of the human psyche, a well placed joke can be quite funny. In fact, the very act of a teddy bear, a signifier of comfort and stability, being driven to the point of suicide wouldn't seem out of place in an animated comedy like The Simpsons, Futurama or Family Guy (I think its actually happened in Futurama or FG by the by) and is one of the most satirical punchlines I can imagine.

    Again, I would like to know what PEGI (Or even the BBFC) would like to say about it and if they feel they were right or wrong. But I feel PEGI were justified. Naughty Bear's depictions are cartoonish and would be ineffectual to those able to tell a difference.

  • convercide #68 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker
    The context is completely different. You're twisting my argument to make it sound like there's a loop in my logic, when there isn't. You've convinced yourself that it's perfectly acceptable for a 12 year old child to make a bear scare another so much you see him commit suicide. You basically bully the victim into desperation. If that seems ok to you and PEGI, then fine, you're an idiot and they need to chack their guidelines. If you would happily let your 12 year old child play this game, then you're an absolute twat.

    The Bugs Bunny reference is irrelevant. You're using flimsy arguments and are just plain ignorant. Bugs Bunny might commit suicide as a punchline but again I'm assuming the context is that life is so bad at that stage, it's the obvious joke. At no point does the viewer have any input into that outcome. In Naughty Bear you scare someone so much they blow their brains out. It's different. Stop trying to defend it. Stop trying to twist my words.

    I'm not always right, I wish I was, but I'm right about this. This is a line that has been crossed. A childish leap across it. It's not satirical. It's not funny. It's just uninspired controversy.

    At no point did I say there are taboos in comedy, you're filling in mental blanks and it's quite ridiculous. Anything can be funny given the right context but contrary to this things can be equally offensive in context. In the context of this videogame, suicide is offensive and should not be activated in such childish circumstances. Just stop with the poor internet argument. If it makes you feel better, some of your points are valid but in true internet style you completely missed the point I was making, skirting around it with pedantry, picking off other irrelevant comments I've made.

  • RobotRocker #69 2 years ago

    you're an idiot and they need to chack their guidelines

    you're an absolute twat

    You're using flimsy arguments and are just plain ignorant

    Just stop with the poor internet argument. If it makes you feel better, some of your points are valid but in true internet style you completely missed the point I was making, skirting around it with pedantry, picking off other irrelevant comments I've made.

    The irony of you screaming how the game uses bullying and crosses the line while you start name calling and calling my position ignorant isn't lost on me.

    Oh well. Could have had a civil argument, but thats gone now. How naughty indeed.

  • convercide #70 2 years ago

    Most of those weren't aimed at you directly. For example if anyone reads the exact words I typed they'll see I actually said:

    If you would happily let your 12 year old child play this game, then you're an absolute twat.

    You however are ignorant and seem to have a knack for trolling and quoting out of context. Well done. I can do it too.

    the game uses bullying

    Yes it does and you drive someone to suicide by doing it. And 12 year olds can play this. Which is wrong.

    The argument was never going to be civil because you're just trolling for a retaliation. Reading your retorts is like listening to like a school debate. I'm being serious, you're arguments against this are awful. It's morally wrong. Just because PEGI have accepted it, it doesn't mean it's right. Like I said the context is awful and shouldn't be witness by anyone under 18 at the very least. You can't justify the age rating.

  • hayisforhorses #71 2 years ago

    @ The two arguing above, the key problem with this game is that is revelling in the violence and that is why it should not be rated a 12+ anything where the violence becomes sadistic should be highly rated. Mario jumps on a goombas head he doesnt then curb stomp its brains out, even if he did it wouldnt still be appropriate to children because its isnt human the motive is still sadistic.

    This looks the sort of thing that would be amusing in a 3 panel comic strip, but only once. Everything about this just makes me think of shadow the hedgehog and a suits idea of edgy.

    Edited by 1 at 30/06/10 @ 11:44

  • RobotRocker #72 2 years ago


    The argument was never going to be civil because you're just trolling for a retaliation. Reading your retorts is like listening to like a school debate. I'm being serious, you're arguments against this are awful. It's morally wrong. Just because PEGI have accepted it, it doesn't mean it's right. Like I said the context is awful and shouldn't be witness by anyone under 18 at the very least. You can't justify the age rating.

    No, its because you dived straight into insults and are accusing me of troll behaviour because you didn't like someone challenging your moral viewpoints and seem to be desperate to be right. Now, if you want people to be sycophantically agreeing with your viewpoint. Try http://www.dailymail.co.u k instead.
    Edited by 1 at 30/06/10 @ 13:16

  • convercide #73 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker
    Look you might not agree with me, but a lot of people will. I have no idea why you're defending this in the first place. The bottom line is, a 12 year old shouldn't be able to buy this game. Calling me desperate and citing the Daily Mail is trolling. It's nothing more than that. Trying to defend yourself here is pointless because it is baiting for a response. I don't read the Daily Mail because it's nonsense. I've stated before that I'm happy with Manhunt existing, even though it is just a murder simulator as the age rating reflects the content.

    Challenging my moral viewpoint? Oh dear. Stop trying to make it like I'm the only person thinking this. I'm not.

    I'll tell you what. Show the footage of the bear killing himself to a room full of parents and then see their response. Explain to them how you achieve that situation in the game and whether they'd be happy with their child playing it. Have you actually shown anyone the footage and tried defending it? I'd like to see the general response you get. I've shown several people and not mentioned anything about the game at all, and the response has been negative, especially when I mentioned the age rating afterwards.

  • RobotRocker #74 2 years ago

    This is getting tiresome. So, I'm going to try get this conversation productive again. Unless we want to go back to name calling.

    I went and contacted PEGI and asked them myself to clarify their position, particularly on the suicide question. Here is their response.

    "The game Naughty Bear received a 12-rating, according to the PEGI rating criteria. The main character of the game, Naughty Bear, is a somewhat disgruntled, anti-social character.
    Although the game is violent, really violent at some times, the violence is on the whole is still a teddy bear being violent towards other teddy bears. There is no blood shown, only bear stuffing. Although the violence is quite severe sometimes, and bears can even commit suicide, the characters at which the violence is aimed, are always fantasy characters. This means that the violence in this game has been classified as ‘realistic looking violence towards fantasy characters’, resulting in a 12-rating."

    Even I think at best its a Viz joke beaten into the ground. But they have it right. Its fantasy and clearly marked as fantasy. Most 13 year olds (Who are more than likely watching shows like Family Guy and sneakily reading Viz themselves) would understand the difference easily. If you are looking for a new folk devil, I don't think you will find it here.

    By all means though. If you want to yell at PEGI yourself. Tell them here yourself instead of trying to call people names in comments sections when they don't agree with your analysis.

    http://www.pegi. info/en/index/id/511

  • convercide #75 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker
    I find it amusing how you think I'm 'yelling' and 'screaming.' I'm not. This discussion will go absolutely nowhere due to the fact that we're both insistent that we're right. Let's just give it a rest. It is tedious and neither of us are going to back down.

    I have contacted PEGI, and I await their response.

  • kinggibbon #76 2 years ago

    I wish I saw this review before I pre-ordered this game months ago. Its absolutely horrendous! I loved the idea of an orginal game but they blew it with the linear gameplay.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #77 2 years ago

    I saw this a few months back in official xbox magazine where the anticipation status was "Fervent" or some similar crap they come out with and I was a bit perplexed as to why this would be anticipated at all, it looks so poor. What a crap concept!
    The review seems to confirm that.

  • muscleblade #78 2 years ago

    @smelly

    I have played it.

    My local store got the game last week days before this review. I also tried out Singularity, Transformers and Sniper a week before actual release.

  • chrisjm #79 2 years ago

    at that age they have years of experience at decapitated & pulling the arms off their sisters barbie.

  • NGCes26294BIV #80 2 years ago

    "Avoid at all costs"

    And yet 4/10?

    Since when did slightly below average (5/10) become the point where games should be left well alone?

  • cherryuk #81 1 year ago

    it is as rubbish as the review says, plays like an awful PS1 game too. I'll give it 2/10 - not even worth a rent!