In a phrase: it's very pretty and very short. Square Enix really rushed this one out the door.
Gameplay: It functions as a 3rd/1st person shooter. The "Easy" mode includes some auto-aim assists, while "Hard" mode requires you to actually manually point and shoot. "Hard" is pretty much impossible playing with a controller, but the game does support keyboard/mouse. There are a few control issues that feel like the programmers just got lazy; your melee attacks are difficult to use accurately, because despite the large sweeping animations, your target zone is very small. Exploration consists of standard FPS tasks; kill X creatures, kill X creatures before they get to X location, protect X civilians, get to X location without the guards seeing you, etc. Nothing is too terribly difficult, and the game is good about providing you with items (or opportunities to buy them). Ultimately, the game resorts to very cheap tactics to create challenge - a cut scene puts you in the middle of a room with enemies all around you, a situation that would NEVER actually arise for a reasonably experienced FPS gamer, a boss that can chain stun you - and the stark change in difficulty when those tactics arose was very frustrating.
Since it IS a FF game, Vincent has the opportunity to level up, but the game never really explains what this does for you, besides giving you more HP. More often than not, I converted my EXP to gil to upgrade my weapons, which had a much more visible effect. Customizing the guns was fun, to a point, but in the long run I felt like I wasn't really doing much, and I never really got the hang of the finer points of the customization process.
The big minus in the gameplay department is the game's brevity; including time spent wandering around learning how to play properly, I beat the game in less than 10 hours. NOT acceptable.
Sound: The lack of either Nobuo Uematsu and Yasunori Mitsuda shows. Also, the voice actors are, for the most part, pretty terrible - about as bad as the ones in FFX (possibly also Advent Children, but I've never watched it with the English voice actors).
Graphics: Very pretty; the best yet on the PS2. Character animations are smooth, lighting is dynamic and accurate, backgrounds and surfaces are vivid and appropriate. CGI cut scenes are done by the same team that produced Advent Children, and are of the same calibre.
Plot: If you're a fan of FFVII, this game (or an online synopsis) is pretty much a must-have. It fills in a lot of holes and further explores a lot of the characters that got thrown to the side in VII. Vincent is a worthy character, and one who didn't get nearly enough attention in the first game.
Overall: Purchase, 2/10. Rent, 6/10. Rent, as a FF fanboy, 8/10.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks for the review yo!
I was thinking about getting this one, but after watching previews and reading reviews like yours, I might just rent it from BlockBuster one day.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
I'll buy it after it becomes greatest hits.
Thanks for the review!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I beat the game in less than 10 hours. NOT acceptable.
Why not? Why does the length of the game influence its quality, assuming the experience was otherwise satisfactory and the "story" got told?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
For the same reason I'd spend eight bucks on a novel, but not on a twenty-page short story.
If you're buying diversion, it's fair to take into consideration the amount of it you get for how much you pay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Why not? Why does the length of the game influence its quality, assuming the experience was otherwise satisfactory and the "story" got told?
Most gamers absolutely loathe it if a game feels 'too short.' You get invested in a game, and then it just up and quits on you, leaving the "that's it?" feeling -- puts a sour aftertaste on a game experience.
A game is measured by what you can do in it, so if you suddenly slam into the end without feeling content with the whole of the game experience, it feels like you've been railroaded.
Exa: Molyneux's Fable, Star Wars' Galactic Commando. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, I never felt that Fable was too short; in fact, it felt like it had bits tacked on to make it unnecessarily longer.
Of course, this may be because I'm over 30 and have a child and consequently don't have as much time to play games as I once did -- but, frankly, I'd be grateful for episodic content that ended after a handful of hours, not least because then I wouldn't feel like I have to devote a huge chunk of my life to the worthless act of just finishing a game to see everything that's in it.
The idea of playing a game multiple times to see other storylines or unlock characters is something that I consider ludicrously unrealistic for people with lives. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I've seen Half-Life 2 finished in just under FOUR hours. Does that mean it's not worth the money?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
For that matter, there's a speed run of Morrowind that clocks in at something like seven minutes.
I don't mind short games -- ICO is a good example of an excellent short game. It only took me about seven hours to finish, counting deaths, but I absolutely loved it.
That said, I sunk close to 100 hours into Oblivion, and 70+ hours into each of the two Digital Devil Saga games, so I don't mind length -- it just means that finishing the game will take me several months. For example, I bought Oblivion in mid-March and didn't finish the main quest until late June or early July. I still haven't done half of the various guild/arena quests, nor have I touched the Dark Brotherhood stuff, so I may go back to it later.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Metroid: Zero Mission for the GameBoy Advance has an average time of 2 hours. I saw a guy beat it in under 30 minutes. However, after beating it, I unlocked the NES version, which took me nearly a month to beat, or 20 hours. So it was worth it.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I've seen Half-Life 2 finished in just under FOUR hours. Does that mean it's not worth the money?
Did you replay it, or play multiplayer?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I've seen Half-Life 2 finished in just under FOUR hours. Does that mean it's not worth the money?
There are new episodes of HL2 being developed as well. The first installment has already been released as well.
Also multiplayer is a great place for some quick satisfying fun, rather then the lengthy investment of other types of play.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: See, I never felt that Fable was too short; in fact, it felt like it had bits tacked on to make it unnecessarily longer.
Of course, this may be because I'm over 30 and have a child and consequently don't have as much time to play games as I once did -- but, frankly, I'd be grateful for episodic content that ended after a handful of hours, not least because then I wouldn't feel like I have to devote a huge chunk of my life to the worthless act of just finishing a game to see everything that's in it.
I'm much more concerned with the value of a game; having played games that, for whatever reason, were engaging and fun to play for 50-100+ hours, paying the same $49.99 for a game that ends after 10 hours (and has practically no replay value) feels dishonest.
quote:The idea of playing a game multiple times to see other storylines or unlock characters is something that I consider ludicrously unrealistic for people with lives.
While I agree, this isn't the point. I don't mind if a game is brief and doesn't drag out; in fact, I'm often thankful for it. I'm disappointed with the length because, as Juxtapose pointed out, I want my mindless diversions to last. I want to feel like my money was well spent. In the case of Dirge of Cerberus, this wasn't the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:having played games that, for whatever reason, were engaging and fun to play for 50-100+ hours, paying the same $49.99 for a game that ends after 10 hours (and has practically no replay value) feels dishonest
I don't understand this. Do you feel cheated when you watch a Disney movie, which typically clocks in at around 1:30? Do you feel you get a better value from a historical drama that runs for nearly three hours?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
$50 for 10 hours stacks up pretty well against, say, movies.
Having said that, I didn't buy Prey ($70 for a 10-hour game) even though I had fun with the demo.
I do think, though, that it's unreasonable to expect JRPG length from non-RPG games, especially given that JRPGs typically feature random encounters that pad the length of the game significantly without much work on the part of the developer to generate content. Because I dislike the mechanic so strongly, a JRPG has to be truly exceptional for me to be interested in playing it nowadays.
Added: That's what I get for not previewing my post first. Oh well.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:having played games that, for whatever reason, were engaging and fun to play for 50-100+ hours, paying the same $49.99 for a game that ends after 10 hours (and has practically no replay value) feels dishonest
I don't understand this. Do you feel cheated when you watch a Disney movie, which typically clocks in at around 1:30? Do you feel you get a better value from a historical drama that runs for nearly three hours?
You're ignoring replay value. If I can play a game for 50-100+ hours, whether that's one continuous play or 5-10 ten hour plays, I'm going to feel like I got more bang for my buck.
Likewise, I can rewatch most Disney movies ad infinitum; hence, I am usually comfortable with paying $19.99 for the DVD, while I would feel ripped off paying $19.99 for Grease 2.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)