Rag Doll Kung Fu Review

Real (physics) ultimate power.

Version tested: PC

Remember when you were a kid, and you had those crazy bendy-flap pin clip things? I've got a feeling they have a proper name, but I'm also fairly sure that they slip out of existence once you're past the age of 12, unless you become a primary school teacher when you're allowed to see them again, so it doesn't really matter. You'd push them through a hole in two bits of card, and then bend the two flaps of metal back against the flat surface, so the two were attached, but could rotate around. And of course you'd be doing this to make a little person with pose-able limbs. And then you could colour it in. Then it would be time for break, and you'd graze your knee. Which you never do any more. Not even primary school teachers still graze their knee. But what were primary schools doing covering their playgrounds with loose, sharp gravel? My theory: playgrounds were paid for by sticking plaster companies - an investment to ensure business stayed good. I'm on to you Elastoplast - your reign of tyranny against the patellae of the under-12s will soon come to an end.

Rag Doll Kung Fu is a lot like that. Except without the colouring in. Or pretty much everything else. I'm only redeemed by the peculiar similarity of its characters' movement, with those-there cardboard figures.

The project of Lionhead employee, Mark Healey, RDKF (which looks like it should be an internet abbreviation for something horribly insulting) is distributed via Valve's Steam, but it's important to stress has nothing other to do with Valve, or the Source engine. It's a completely independent work, sold using Valve's proposed publisher-frustrating distribution method, much the same as the extremely fine, and 4th most bestest game of 2005, Darwinia.

There's no neat way to describe it. If I were Kieron, I'd probably say it's a "post-Havok trope" and then compare it to dancing... Wait a second! That's a point. RDKF is exactly like Kieron's dancing. It's the mad flinging of four limbs and a head, in a destructive, time-bending and strangely beautiful display.

'Rag Doll Kung Fu' Screenshot 1a

Ninjas are mammals.

Using only the mouse, you click on a limb (or the head or bottom) with either the left or right mouse button, left to drag and move, right to direct an attack. Movement is, well: imagine a marionette, pivoted at all its joints, horribly, horribly drunk (also high from sniffing wood glue) crossed in a freakish genetic experiment (shush) with a crab. That's precisely how it moves. Apart from that it can also sort of fly.

The notion is to beat up whatever else is on screen via this lunatic interaction, in a pastiche of a thousand terrible 1970's ninja films. With added Chi. Chi is necessary for both big jumps and any attacking, maintained by swirling the mouse in circles in any spare moments. Also, pots can be smashed to release bonus items, such as nunchakus, blades or throwing stars, which can then be swung madly at opponents. Mushrooms can be picked up from the ground and eaten (drag the hand to the mushroom to pick, drag the hand to the mouth to eat) in order to gain the temporary ability to fly. Butterflies can be captured in order to fire yellow electricity from your fingers. The usual stuff.

The game begins with a sensible couple of tutorial levels, and then leaves any further education entirely optional via flashing signposts in the background. (Oh, if you could only have thought of this before Black & White 2, Mr Healey). But it's by no means easy. Control is entirely alien, or perhaps: new. But pleasingly, and in a rewarding way that I haven't experienced in a long while, you really do get better as you play. Obviously we all improve at games with practise, and earlier levels are far easier on replaying, but not quite so dramatically as the getting-to-grips-with process here. And pleasingly, this isn't because the game has drip-fed you new abilities as you go along - go back to the first levels, and you can perform everything you've learned since, and feel a bit more masterful.

'Rag Doll Kung Fu' Screenshot 2a

Ninjas fight all the time.

However, that doesn't mean it ever becomes instinctive, or even all that satisfying. Which is surprising. The erratic nature of your character's flinging across the screen never seems to feel quite right, and mushroom flying - with its warped time - doesn't give you the pleasure of knowing you're in control. While it becomes easier to conduct fights (at the start it seems impossible that you'll ever be able move into the right place, click on the correct limb, and execute the attack, while dodging explosions and maintaining chi), it never quite works properly, with attacks failing a good 30 per cent of the time for unfathomable reasons.

So while it's nice when you manage to turn in mid-air, execute a flying kick, and then rebound away in time to avoid the flash of lightning, you're aware that it wasn't because of your elite skills, but more that it didn't go wrong that time.

It looks splendid. It's not in 2D, but it's not in 3D either, and the way you can zoom in and out of the action, having the camera delving through long grass, or past the ridiculously detailed and lifelike leaves of a tree, onto the gurning cartoon face of your avatar, means you can't settle for something smug like 2.5D. So instead I'm going to call it QD, and we'll all just have to accept that.

'Rag Doll Kung Fu' Screenshot 3a

The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

Special effects glow beautifully, and things sparkle, twinkle or explode splendidly. If it looks like anything, I'd suggest a hybrid between nature photography and Paper Mario 2. While clearly the physics and the non-scripted animation are meant to be the focus, the real achievements appear in the graphics. They are like nothing else.

Betwixt the levels are snippets of a spoof Ninja film, made by Mark Healey and his chums. It's authentic looking, and extremely silly, with deliberately abysmal special effects. And I swear it was filmed at Sheapleas - a wooded area near Guildford that was excellent for childhood games of Frisbee. This is all extra-fun, right up until the script.

Despite the soundtrack featuring what might well be Japanese, or maybe just mad Oriental shouting, the subtitling looks as if it were written by a group of 14-year-old boys. Yes, it's funny to have the dead-serious looking ninja say, "my arse hurts" once. But every single line uses the same notion that juxtaposition will always be funny. Here's the thing: it's not juxtaposition when it's the entirety of the script. "Let's do some ninja shit!" might have been nice as a surprise line. Ten seconds after "Wise master say, 'do not dance like a tit'" and a dozen other lines the same, it's woeful.

And no, this doesn't matter much, and yes, it can be immediately skipped, but it does imply the amateur vibe that appears throughout. The menus are extremely tacky, the OSD is tatty, and there's a large lack of polish throughout. Of course, as a weekend project, banged together by Healey and his mates in their spare time, it's all fine. The problem occurs the moment they start charging money for it. It's only $14.95 (about £8), so an almost throwaway amount. But still, it's harder to forgive the scrappy nature as soon as you've parted with cash.

'Rag Doll Kung Fu' Screenshot 4a

Good heavens, would you look at the detail in that grass. Oh, the thing on his head fires lasers.

The main game itself doesn't last much longer than three hours on a first run through. But that's somewhat deceptive. The imperative of receiving bonuses for completing levels in a certain time can soon be ignored, and instead time can be taken searching for bonuses. These unlock mini-games, such as a bizarre football game, each of which use the nature of the engine in a different environment. There are about ten of these to find, each with their own set of levels to play through, swelling the game up to about ten times the size. And then of course you can take the whole thing online, and play against the people who live in the internet. Oddly, this is the least satisfying mode of play, possibly because every human you oppose is struggling with the madness of the controls as much as you. It's all very ungainly.

Back and forth I've gone, this is good, but this is bad, this works well, but this does not. What a to-do. It's deliberately an amateur product, but it's annoying to pay for that. It's inspired and wholly original, but it's over-complicated and frustrating. It's fun to play, but it becomes quickly irritating.

My mark has fluctuated all over the place. At one point I wanted to give it 5, but then it's so interesting, and so daft, and so inspired, and it was far too low. I was tempted by 6, because, well it compromised. And then I tried to give it Q/10, but Tom wouldn't let me. So then it ended up on 7, because hell, it's fun. But for a really short time. Oh, so maybe it should be 6. But no, that still feels wrong. It's still 7outof10 good. Look, here's the deal: It's 7/10, ok, and we'll settle on that. But those lost 3/10 are really big numbers, drawn with a thick, black pen, and then underlined twice.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (33) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Hicksy #1 6 years ago

    Great freebee

    Not worth hard cash tho IMO
  • krudster #2 6 years ago

    What would people be prepared to pay for quirky little games like this? I think this sort of project is a great idea, so long as the price is right. If it encourages innovation and a break from the crushing monotony of endless sequels, I'm all for it.
  • Jetset_UK #3 6 years ago

    I have to say, I didn't get on with the demo AT ALL.

    You know, I think this maybe my first 'comment'!

    Hi everyone in comment land!
  • Ceatlan #4 6 years ago

    Krudster,

    I'm all for the innovative independant games market to. For me it has to be priced suitable for impulse purchases, driven by a desire created after reading something positive written about it (like this review for instance). As a result I'm prepared to pay between about £5 and £15 for downloadable independant games, depending on their length, complexity and polish.

    From the reviews and comments I've heard about this game it seems to me to be in the £5 to £10 bracket.
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/06 @ 09:22
  • afray #5 6 years ago

    Hi Jetset!

    *group hug*
  • Ceatlan #6 6 years ago

    I'd also prefer not to have to use/install some other piece of software to purchase, download and install said independant games. Which is why I haven't installed Steam and/or purchased this game.

    I'd rather just get a link to download the installer and be in control of what is happening myself.

    Ceatlan.
  • Darren #7 6 years ago

    The demo was good fun for a few minutes but it's not a game that I'd pay for nor is it one I'd play for hours, it's nothing more than a 5 minute novelty I played, I laughed, then I moved on and forgot about.
    Edited by 1 at 06/01/06 @ 09:54
  • melw #8 6 years ago

    ceatlan, heh ... for me it was just another way around. had to purchase darwinia right away when it was available on steam - brilliant system. of course i might've thought differently if i hadn't played half-life 2 before.

    didn't go for ragdoll kungfu though, doesn't seem to be a game for me. but it's nice that they use steam for 3rd party developers distribution, too.
  • Flightrisker #9 6 years ago

    Weird, I'm wearing my real ultimate power tshirt today O_o
    Edited by 1 at 06/01/06 @ 09:54
  • Neverness #10 6 years ago

    I was more than happy to pay for this for the reasons Krudster mentions, though I totally agree with the review. It never quite works how you would like, it never moves beyond ungainly.
    If you think about the control method, it plays excactly as cumbersomly as you think, rather than as well as you could imagine (or how Mark Heley describes).

    Nice distraction and worth getting but a shame.
  • Talha #11 6 years ago

    The price is right-ish, and by God it looks amazing. My only concern is that with a miminum amount of more time and polish, it looks as if it could become a far more fleshed-out experience.

    Can you get the demo anywhere other than Steam?
  • jiveguy #12 6 years ago

    A fun concept, I wish they made an actual game out of it.

    You have to remember it came out of the same environment that brought you the Black and White games ;)

    I've only played the early levels of the game and quickly lost interest after the initial novelty of flicking my man around with the mouse (that doesn't sound quite right). It is a fun concept and multiplayer with two mice at one PC does sound interesting. Settling on the 6/10 AND still offering the caveat about the lost marks would have made more sense. But then, nobody outside of eurogamer knows the complex workings of their cost/playtime/fun/"extra marks for indie game" formula.
  • AceMaCool #13 6 years ago

    Do you get to fight any pirates? Ninjas hate pirates.
  • kangarootoo #14 6 years ago

    How long are people tending to play this for before they switch off? If a standard benchmark for a modern full price game is about 10 hours, I wonder how this compares for £8.
  • arty #15 6 years ago

    "it's nothing more than a 5 minute novelty I played, I laughed, then I moved on and forgot about."

    Seconded.
  • Qbert2k #16 6 years ago

  • Talha #17 6 years ago

    @kangarootoo: I think the '10 hour' standard for modern games is a bit arbitrary and shortchanging the gamers. Not long ago a good shooter lasted for at least 15 hours, and other genre games also had considerable replay value.

    The current trend is to have bigger but fewer maps, and ask the gamer to switch the difficutly level all the way up to artificially stretch the playtime to a decent length (nevermind that dying 10 times instead of the usual five, is hardly attractive).

    Witness the likes of CoD2 and Quake 4. I don't remember gamers accepting anything less than 15 hours long sitting down until recently. Remember, Sands of Time was criticized for being short, although it had 10-ish hours of gameplay.

    I know devs are cramming way more content (objects, textures, AI, scripts) into each game, and therefore the length is bound to suffer - but we, the gamers, are suddenly paying full price for half-length games.

    Just had to get that off my chest.

  • Pastici #18 6 years ago

    Gah, I've played freeware games that are much better then this...
  • krudster #19 6 years ago

    I'd rather play a tight, focused 10 hour game that I actually finish, than get bogged down two-thirds of the way through a 15-hour game that I lose the will to see through. Obviously everyone's different, but I'm *more* likely to play through a shorter game again than be scared off by an torturous epic.

    I don't really buy that games are more expensive for less content. If anything, games have had a price freeze in the past 10 or more years, and come down in price much quicker/go to budget quicker than ever before. Plus, now there's ebay, and many more places to trade in games. We've, ahem, never had it so good.
  • BremXJones #20 6 years ago

    " Gah, I've played freeware games that are much better then this..."

    I'm not sure where this is a criticism. I've played lots of freeware games that are better than full price games.

    KG
  • swisstony99 #21 6 years ago

    I'm just glad that one person, in their spare time (I understand LH did not 'let him have lots of time to do it') produces a game's code and graphics, with online and offline multiplayer, customisability, subgames and a series of daft movies in a storyline to boot and manages to interest someone to distribute it.

    Games development teams are putting out games rated lower than this yet have 50 or more people working on them full time for the two years or so he's been on it.

    Obviously everyone isn't going to like it, as evidenced by the cryptic 'not worth the cash' and 'i've played better freebies' (leaving me for one wondering just what it is about this game or other games drives these conclusions), but I'm slightly surprised there hasn't been more recognition that this title is important in terms of what it stands for within the industry. And I mean recognition, not praise ;)

    For me it's a game with depth and a sense of humour and is just plain different and fresh, qualities which in the context of Eurogamer's game of the year are prominent in their review of that. Now Mark's got some money from this, hopefully he can dedicate himself full time to really fulfil his potential

    Personally I think it's a staggering achievement in a UK industry where developers are going to the wall or otherwise being gobbled up, and a triumph of perseverance that I happen to like.

    I also didn't understand why the reviewer wasted the first paragraph of a review with some pseudo recollection of school which was very poorly connected to the review that follows. Overindulgent.
  • Qbert2k #22 6 years ago

  • BravoGolf #23 6 years ago

    Great review!

    /applauds
  • Feanor #24 6 years ago

    "I know devs are cramming way more content

    It costs them so much more, too. Evil, I tell you.

    I'd rather play a tight, focused 10 hour game that I actually finish

    Then again, your job is to plow through hordes of average games no one cares strongly about. Reviewers gaming habits differ from anyone else's. Lo, the irony. :p"

    Yeah, no offense krudster, but your gaming situation is miles away from most people's given that most people don't play and review a hundred games every year.
  • Ceatlan #25 6 years ago

    I completely agree with Krudster.

    I'd much much rather play a single stunning game that was 10 hours (or less) long but left me gagging for more after I completed it, than a whole horde of good games that were so long I never completed a single one. I'm not a reviewer and I don't play hundreds of games a year, so to say Krudsters view is just because hes a reviewer is miles and miles from the mark.

    Quality not Quantity, thats what counts in my book.

    Ceatlan.
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/06 @ 15:03
  • kangarootoo #26 6 years ago

    @Talha

    I agree. I'm not saying 10 hours is good or bad either way. I was just using that as a rough benchmark. I'm with krudster on the time front though as it happens.

    First off, I don't have time for the epics that I played 10 years or so ago. Second, there is nothing more disattisfying that playing through a good but huge game, but failing to finish it because I simply ran out of steam. I'd much rather play 10 hours and totally love every minute, than play 15 hours but find the last 3 a bit of a chore.
  • MrChuckles #27 6 years ago

    I'm more amazed that he had that much free time while working at a company where 3 games came out last year and from what i heard everyone was working some pretty silly hours for most of it.

    In short, if he was working the hours that most people do in the games industry he most certainly would not have been able to make RDKF as polished as he did.

    I know a lot of people in the industry and when it comes to the end of a 60+ hour week they can think of other things to do than make another game at home. Give 'em a 37.5 hour week, and i'm sure they can work miracles, but in the game industry 37.5 hour weeks don't exist unless you get along very well with your company like Mark probably did at the time.

    And then he left... nice :-)
  • kangarootoo #28 6 years ago

    "when it comes to the end of a 60+ hour week"

    Man, I sigh every time I read something like that. I will never regularly work a 60 hour week and no company will make me do so. Thats my rule and if I ever had to leave the games industry to enforce it I would do so.
  • Pirotic #29 6 years ago

    well written review, made me chuckle (chuckle vision) a few times - 7/10 is a little bit too kind but i can see why you came to that figure.
    Edited by 1 at 06/01/06 @ 17:45
  • SeesThroughAll #30 6 years ago

    Now there's a game that would sound great on a NDS. LOL
  • Lim-Dul #31 6 years ago

    You know - I kind of disagree with you people and agree with the reviewer. 7/10 is a fine score in my opinion. I actually own the game (bought it through Steam) and while I stopped playing it some while ago I enjoyed it quite much. The single player aspect of it doesn't have any lasting appeal, but there IS a lot in competitive play on the net, which is a thing that has been neglected a bit in the review (barely mentioned in fact).

    This is where I got hours of fun for my money and this is why I'm glad I've supported the developer in some way. It's true - there are many players that simply can't grasp the control scheme, but there are others, who stuck with the game for a while (e.g. me) and two (or more) of them meeting each other means really some of the most epic and crazy kung-fu fights I've ever seen in a game with blows, counter-blows, flying kicks and other awesome martial-arts stuff all over the place.


    Besides - you can COMPLETELY customise your avatars. Each limb, the torso, the face and stuff. This also shows that the game has been designed mostly for multiplayer gaming - I mean - why should you care about your looks if nobody else sees you? =)
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/06 @ 22:09
  • drasfs #32 6 years ago

    A game that only lasts for 6 hours, but keeped you hooked and amazed after completion can easily be replayed if the develoer throws in a new game +, new characters or a harder mode, and thus extending the games life.

    A good example is metroid zero mission and fusion.
  • danu #33 6 years ago

    Remember sitting late at night at LH, trying to get something done on Fable, or possibly playing Rise of Nations. Behind me, Mark and Georg, the only two other employees left in the building, were trying to get some network code done on the game reviewed above.

    All very normal, but this was three years ago!

    So having been out of touch with the industry for a couple of years, seeing this review brought a smile to my face. It's hard to get across quite how indy this project was back then - it was really just a pet project, and it is a real achievement to get it released. Big congratulations.
    Edited by 1 at 07/01/06 @ 02:21