I played the demo for 20 hours strictly in Single player. You just need to play more to get to understand how to actually use all the systems and skills to their fullest potential before you can properly judge how it plays
Soul Sacrifice Review Thread
- Thread starter MagicWithEarvin
- Start date
I played the demo for 20 hours strictly in Single player. You just need to play more to get to understand how to actually use all the systems and skills to their fullest potential before you can properly judge how it plays
It doesnt really matter and we got a bit sidetracked anyway. The point was that a lower score deters people from buying the game. And if a game gets the lower score undeserved with reviews that dont make any sense, then its something to complain about.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've been playing the demo, and honestly, the art style sort of puts me off of it. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate it, but it isn't something that I feel I want to look at while playing with all my buddies and such, it feels a lot more like something I'd play when I wanted some survival horror.
That, and I don't quite like the gameplay. It's fine, but not something I want to play for forever, like Monster Hunter, and going from the comments of a "grindy beginning", it sounds like it wants the same amount of time dedication.
That, and I don't quite like the gameplay. It's fine, but not something I want to play for forever, like Monster Hunter, and going from the comments of a "grindy beginning", it sounds like it wants the same amount of time dedication.
Yep, definitely true (although I like that about the game actually).
All I'm suggesting is that there's little chance of it exploding even if it got 10s across the board. It's a niche genre on a system with absolutely no forward momentum, given a token release by Sony; the deck is too stacked against it for anyone to even worry about it getting fair-to-middling scores.
I'd say it has quite a good chance of keeping the momentum with the free DLC down the line and rumored expansion pack at the end of the year and considering Vita gamers will play and talk about it for quite a few weeks and months to come due to the amount of content in the game. And especially because the deck is stacked against it, a lower average review score certainly doesnt help the odds. No matter how you look at it, lower review score = less sales, even if its just 1 single person, its one less sale towards a financial success due to uninformed reviews.
Sammy Samusu
Member
Inafune Sacrifice.
MH on PS2 is pure garbage, it controls like shit and deserves bad scores.
MH3/U got great reviews, and it's not reviewing better because it became a hit, 3/U are much more polished than FU.
MH on PS2 is pure garbage, it controls like shit and deserves bad scores.
Unite (and 2nd gen in general) is in some respects a more polished experience than Tri/Tri Ultimate because Capcom was making the game for MH fans rather than the casuals they started to chase during 3rd gen.
Sure, there are some improvements that were long overdue, but Tri was mostly a big let down after MHFU.
3U is barely different than MHFU as far as how the game controls. Exposure helps scores because some reviewers will give the game more time and try to "get it." Monster Hunter has deserved great scores IMO ever since MHF2 on PSP.
A little surprised by the low scores. Then I see many of these reviewers didn't have access to the multiplayer, which is the real meat of the game IMO. I've played the demo longer than some reviewers played the final game...
Ah game reviews. They are an OK guide for buyers, but shouldn't be the end-all, be-all of opinions.
And for the record, I like this a whole lot more than Monster Hunter (MHFU). It's refined and streamlined. Monster Hunter was great, but at times felt like a hassle just for the sake of being a hassle.
Ah game reviews. They are an OK guide for buyers, but shouldn't be the end-all, be-all of opinions.
And for the record, I like this a whole lot more than Monster Hunter (MHFU). It's refined and streamlined. Monster Hunter was great, but at times felt like a hassle just for the sake of being a hassle.
That's an issue for me, I tend to Multi at home on consoles. My portable time is just that, when I'm needing to be portable.
Shame the single player is lacking.
Now that's some bullshit. Have you even played it? It's basically the same game minus the newer roster of monsters/weapons.
It isnt really lacking. I played the SP in the demo for 20 hours and had stupidly much fun with it. MP enhances the game like any other game, but the game is certainly not unplayable or unfun in SP.
Single player is great too. I just think MP is what really pushes the game over the edge into something special. Being able to turn on my Vita, quickly log in to a network party of 4, and take down a giant beast is incredibly addictive. The MP is really suited for either short bouts, or long marathons. I'm a little enamored with it.
20 hours? Wow.
nailbombxx
Member
Nope.
An eight for the game is alright, even though I don't care about the grades...
The problem here lies on their written review... LOTS of shit being completely false. It's ridiculous how these guys can call themselves reviewers... I DIDN'T EVEN PLAYED the game and I probably know more than most of these guys.
No depth? Button Mashing? Seriously?
The problem here lies on their written review... LOTS of shit being completely false. It's ridiculous how these guys can call themselves reviewers... I DIDN'T EVEN PLAYED the game and I probably know more than most of these guys.
No depth? Button Mashing? Seriously?
the op should be updated. there are 20 reviews on metacritic.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/soul-sacrifice/critic-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/soul-sacrifice/critic-reviews
You got the game thinking that you were getting MH. Sorry, but this isn't it. If you want that, you need to get a 3DS.
I don't know about you, but exploring and grinding in MH was extremely bad for me. Gathering missions fucking sucks. I just wanted to fight big monsters.
staticneuron
Member
Except there is no "hunting" in Soul Sacrifice. Any comparisons to Monster Hunter will be shallow and gives the impression they haven't really spent time with either title.
The only thing you could say links the two is the fact that they are third person action games, have large bosses, and have a co-op feature. Everything else, from the magic, to the sacrifice, to minds eye and ghost mode, is totally different.
ttocs
Member
Monster Hunter on a handheld killed it for me. I remember playing Tri on the Wii and I enjoyed that but MH on a handheld just felt like it was too much in too little of a package. SS on the other hand focuses on the important parts, the battles and the story, and leaves the rest out which I can appreciate.
Yeah... you can make some parallels (Sigils = Armors in MH)... but that's about it. Game is supposed to be fast paced, but strategic at same time.
Well, you could be overlooking the fact that one has 34 reviews and the other has 6...
and that the Vita version is nowhere as polished as the PS3 version.. lol
Mammoth Jones
Member
The only turn off for me is that it's an "arena" type of game. I wish there were larger levels and some exploration was involved.
But that's not what this game is about. In the end, I think I'm going to dig it. I liked the demo and I like rewarding grinds. So this is something I can rock on the train to and from work and on the couch while Mrs. Mammoth is playing her laptop games.
The biggest problem for me is that I have zero friends on PSN that actually play anything.
But that's not what this game is about. In the end, I think I'm going to dig it. I liked the demo and I like rewarding grinds. So this is something I can rock on the train to and from work and on the couch while Mrs. Mammoth is playing her laptop games.
The biggest problem for me is that I have zero friends on PSN that actually play anything.
staticneuron
Member
Extremely fast pace. Imo, Monster Hunter relishes on a different type of feeling. Even if you grind and get the right parts, normally boss battles get moderately easier for the rank you are at. You still would either have to get better parts through MP, or plan and prepare to solo a monster till it dies. The preparation, the fact that you actually have to chase a monster and the phases make Monster hunter a different beast. In SS, you can grind, find the weaknesses and create a strategy to take down a monster or clear a stage in minutes. Except for Cerebrus. I am still working on that (lol).
The only turn off for me is that it's an "arena" type of game. I wish there were larger levels and some exploration was involved.
But that's not what this game is about. In the end, I think I'm going to dig it. I liked the demo and I like rewarding grinds. So this is something I can rock on the train to and from work and on the couch while Mrs. Mammoth is playing her laptop games.
The biggest problem for me is that I have zero friends on PSN that actually play anything.
Play with the guys on the OT man.
And even Cerberus can be taken down by guys in the OT within 3 minutes with JUST the demo levels and spells. This game's combat system is deeeeeeeeeeep as hell.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Reviews are only as dependable as the reviewer, I'm very happy that the demo was so long as it gave me a great chance to find out if the game is for me or not.
Turns out, its really great, and I am enjoying it and have the full game on its way to me.
Soul Sacrafice may not be a "reviewers game", but I believe its a "gamers game".
Turns out, its really great, and I am enjoying it and have the full game on its way to me.
Soul Sacrafice may not be a "reviewers game", but I believe its a "gamers game".
Oh really? I guess that settles it.
crazygambit
Member
Just playing the demo I completely disagree with that. Button mashing gets you nowhere fast. A lot of the thought and strategy comes from picking the right load out for the enemy you're fighting (elemental weaknesses, melee vs long range, the right utility spells) and then executing correctly. Much like MonHun.
Fights that appear impossible at first, like Cerberus, later become easy when you know how to tackle them (much like MonHun again) only for more difficult battles to take their place I assume (Cerberus is only like 4 out of 10? stars difficulty).
Gold_Loot
Member
I like your avatar
And I agree. It does. It's really an 8 game at worst imo.
Thanks =)
On topic,
It's funny, just the other day I was thinking how polished, and how much of a breath of fresh air this game was. It looks great, sounds great, and just feels great. Sure, everyone has opinions, but I just don't see how this game is "barely above average" by some of these reviews.
KillerTravis
Banned
I think MH3U's metacritic is above 80.
Only took 8 years!
Soul Sacrifice is 77.
Shai-Tan
Banned
The reviews made me hold off on buying the game but only because I dislike boss rush type games, and even dislike pve dungeons in WoW.
I wouldn't get hung up on the Polygon review though - they don't seem to understand a lot of the games they are playing and seem to have no concept about relative quality in their scoring criteria. It's pretty much what you got in the past with impression driven kotaku/joystiq reviews (written by people who spend most of their day doing blog news) only there is scoring now.
I wouldn't get hung up on the Polygon review though - they don't seem to understand a lot of the games they are playing and seem to have no concept about relative quality in their scoring criteria. It's pretty much what you got in the past with impression driven kotaku/joystiq reviews (written by people who spend most of their day doing blog news) only there is scoring now.
KillerTravis
Banned
Doctor Decimate
Member
good reviews = hooray!
bad reviews = corruption, ignorance, bias, "reviews don't matter"
sound about right? not necessarily picking on Soul Sacrifice here, but this cycle is getting tiresome.
bad reviews = corruption, ignorance, bias, "reviews don't matter"
sound about right? not necessarily picking on Soul Sacrifice here, but this cycle is getting tiresome.
I am guessing any time now. Hopefully soon!
join us at the OT guys, we were having some crazy fun with the demo
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=545656
the fun has continued for some while the rest of us are waiting for Grace Chen to update X)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=545656
the fun has continued for some while the rest of us are waiting for Grace Chen to update X)
Jeff did a livestream showing off his modded Vita after he got it. It looked like a pain in the ass to deal with.
staticneuron
Member
Button mashing is the fasted way to get killed/run out of spells/ break your spells.
The only unlimited spell in the demo is the one where you sacrifice life for a short range attack. Ever other one has a limited amount of use, so if you think you can just jump in at take on a larger baddy( such as jack, harpy, or Cerberus) by button mashing, you will be in for a humiliating death. If you played online and did that, your teammates might simply sacrifice you instead of saving you so they wouldn't have to deal with someone bringing the team down.
The only logical way someone could say this is if they haven't gotten past hunting orcs, goblins or rats. Which are basically the introduction to the gameplay. They are weak enough so you can get away with silly stuff and still win.
I know it is easy being dismissive but take for a moment what people are saying. No one is really talking about scores per say but what is being said. If you use terms like monster hunter clone or button masher, lack of depth, it would make no sense to people who actually played the game (via the demo). It is not like people are running on assumptions here. The demo has a large amount of content and people continue to play because items and levels transfer over to full game so why not.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Yea it is settling in not bad of territory overall. The Polygon and Edge reviews are just bad though and not just in score either, they are poorly written. Sadly the low scores are the most attention grabbing ones.
Edit: I do agree with Toma that reviewers brought a lot of this on themselves by seemingly reducing their scale to a 5-10 range. By comparison the Music and Movie critics flex their full scale much more often.
Similar threads
- Poll