Showing 1 to 20 of 23
1. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 09:45 GMT
Here's the first English language review of Samurai Warriors Chronicles: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-21-samurai-warriors...
Even so, you have to concede that Koei knows exactly what it's doing with its flagship series, and while there's a distinct lack of ambition here, equally there's nothing ruinous for long-term fans. If it lacks the impact of its home console cousins, then that's not always the fault of the developer.Some will want nothing more than a 3D Samurai Warriors game they can play on the move, and for them Chronicles will fit the bill nicely. The rest of us might wish for something that doesn't feel quite so underpowered.5/10
Even so, you have to concede that Koei knows exactly what it's doing with its flagship series, and while there's a distinct lack of ambition here, equally there's nothing ruinous for long-term fans. If it lacks the impact of its home console cousins, then that's not always the fault of the developer.
Some will want nothing more than a 3D Samurai Warriors game they can play on the move, and for them Chronicles will fit the bill nicely. The rest of us might wish for something that doesn't feel quite so underpowered.
I kind of don't get the review personally... it says the dual screen stuff is easier with 3D off but then that takes away the game's USP but surely the dual screen stuff is part of the game's USP?
Edited on Tue 22nd March, 2011 @ 09:50 by Oregano
http://www.gaminggauge.com/My new gaming website!
2. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 10:09 GMT
My 3DS Blog | YouTube ChannelCUAF - Administrator/Chef/Logo Creator
SMEXAIZELDAMAN's Official Undercover Assassin
3. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:00 GMT
Oh for God's sakes. Is there a single other journalist out there (other than NintendoLife's Sean Arron) that actually plays these bloddy games before pretending they know enough to write a review.
#@($#ers. This game is 9/10 for me. The 3D helps massively in depth preception, and the battles and character creation stuff is awesome fun.
And the difference is, I've actually played the game.
Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)
4. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:02 GMT
@WaltzElf Sean doesn't write for us any more, just for his own site now
I am not ignoring you. I just do not post much.
5. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:04 GMT
James Newton wrote:
That explains why he's been quiet
But yeah, the NintendoLife review he did of Sam Warriors 3 was awesome and it was clear he actually played the game.
6. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:11 GMT
Of course he did, that's sort of the point behind all reviews, especially ours
7. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:12 GMT
Oh for God's sakes. Is there a single other journalist out there (other than NintendoLife's Sean Arron) that actually plays these bloddy games before pretending they know enough to write a review.#@($#ers. This game is 9/10 for me. The 3D helps massively in depth preception, and the battles and character creation stuff is awesome fun.And the difference is, I've actually played the game.
You know, I heard Corbie actually reviews the game by eating the game, then listing all the things he could taste.
Edited on Tue 22nd March, 2011 @ 11:14 by Aviator
In a way exhausting
we're problem solving
Drink 'til she's attractive
Talking 'bout diplomatic
I brought my plastic
Making that peace attractive
8. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:19 GMT
You guys, absolutely. But I can guarantee that, based on the factual errors in Warriors reviews, that most other review sources are lucky if they play a warriors game for a hour before 'reviewing it'
9. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:24 GMT
I think you're right: most reviewers take it at face value rather than boning up on the series. It's annoying but it happens.
10. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:31 GMT
And to be fair, it's not just Warriors - there's a host of niche series' that fail to get the media treatment they deserve, not because they're bad games, but because the reviewer doesn't take the effort to understand the game.
It's just that the Warriors really cop it... Samurai Warriors was the second highest rated 3DS release in Famitsu!
11. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:41 GMT
Well the biggest issue I see about the review is that it seems inconsistent. How can it talk about how the game differs quite a bit from the series' norm and then call it unambitious?
I'm not even a fan of the series either!(Chronicles will be my first Musou game)
12. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:47 GMT
Well the biggest issue I see about the review is that it seems inconsistent. How can it talk about how the game differs quite a bit from the series' norm and then call it unambitious?I'm not even a fan of the series either!(Chronicles will be my first Musou game)
Because every 'real' journalist copy pastes the following template when 'reviewing' a Warriors game:
1) Establish whether it's set in Japan or China
2) Complain about it being fan service
3) State how it hasn't changed
4) Complain about it being a button masher
5) Give it 5/10 or below.
Now, 'journalists' can be creative and put those five points in different orders, but under no circumstances can they play the game. Because they might have to give it a good review then.
13. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:51 GMT
Or maybe they just didn't like it. I dunno, just throwing it out there.
14. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 11:57 GMT
Like I said. There's so many factual inaccuracies about these games that it's clear they're not played much before they're reviewed in many cases - sometimes not, but often enough to stick.
And beyond that, because Koei games are low profile, they get given to the new, junior journalists at most of these websites and magazines, and those journalists haven't figured out yet that if a game doesn't have technical flaws, then you can't review it like it's a broken game.
It's fine not to like a game, and to say so in your review, and even dock it a few points because of that. But if there are no technical flaws, and when it's a series that has a few million fans, then you have to recognize THAT in the review too, work out why they might like the game, and then take that into account when scoring it. That's responsible journalism.
It would be like me giving Mario Galaxy 4/10 because 3D platformers put me to sleep.
15. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:09 GMT
@WaltzElfIf you enjoy the games, play them.. I see no reason to complain about reviews, especially as every single one of their points is valid. Doom 3, for example, was heavily criticized when it came out for being too dark.. just because every other review has pointed this out, doesn't mean it's a point that isn't worth discussing again.
The review did point out that fans of the series would still enjoy it but it also brought up points that are legitimately going to put people off buying it and rightly so.
I've been considering buying this game at launch after hearing so much praise from some, so I've gone back and played a couple of the most recent games in the series (well, the Dynasty games but still) and can honestly say I agree with pretty much every point this review made. The gameplay just isn't fun, it's tedious and extremely repetitive and the story really didn't do anything for me.. Yes, I understand it may have some historical significance but the same can be said for games like Napoleon: Total War, which I really do enjoy and mostly because of the historical subtext.
Personally, I think the game would benefit from a more realistic approach. That's probably a cultural difference again but I'd rather see a big, realistic, gritty battle.. like the one from the end of Seven Samurai rather than something that's very over the top and anime. It takes away from the drama and I don't think it meshes with the historical backdrop.
Again, if you do like the games.. knock yourself out, but 5/10 seems like a fair score to me and I think most other English speaking gamers will score it similarly and just because you disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong.
16. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:17 GMT
That's certainly possible but I still have that issue with the review. It would be easy to say something along the lines of 'commendably the developers do try to make changes to the formula but their implementation was met with mixed results.' EDIT: That gives credit where it's due but still gets the point across that they weren't very happy.
Anyway... how drastic is the enemy count cut? From the footage I've seen there's still what I'd consider a good amount of enemies.... but as I said I've never played a Musou game before(did play Mystic Heroes though).
Edited on Tue 22nd March, 2011 @ 12:22 by Oregano
17. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:19 GMT
I'm assuming you've played this game. If so, could you please clarify whether or not this game has online co-op play? I hear different things from different sources.
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
18. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:21 GMT
@WaltzElf Just because the game has fans, doesn't mean the reviewer has to change his score to recognize them.
19. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:43 GMT
LoL. Classic WaltzElf in here.
[insert 25 Cents here to play]
20. Posted: Tue 22nd Mar 2011 12:59 GMT
@Aviator please. If I gave Mario Galaxy 4/10 on the same pretense this review does "it's boring" (which it is to me) fans would be an uproar.
"it's boring to me personally" is a crap reason to give it 5/10. To admit that the game is good - "fans will like it" and then give it 5/10 is insulting.
If you're going to criticize a game, then do it for the right reasons, and that means you need to understand the context. Calling a Warriors game a button masher is like calling Mario Brothers a button masher - after all, you're pressing the same two buttons over and over again throughout the game.
@ BrandonWii. I haven't been able to play it online, but there does seem to be an online option in there in the menu. A lack of 'friends' with the game affects my ability to try it out.
@ Oregano - it's not too bad, but there are fewer enemies on screen. Enough that it still feels active enough, though.
But as it said, it'll be a 4/5 game from me. If a single person can find genuine technical faults with the game, I'll accept 5/10 reviews. Until that happens though, a 5/10 is ridiculous and misplaced, because for about the 1000000th time 5/10 implies a technically deficient game.