Soul Sacrifice Review Thread
- Thread starter MagicWithEarvin
- Start date
ThatStupidLion
Member
OP is failing on keeping updated.
what a bum.
if you're going to shoulder the responsibility of a review thread, do it right.
what a bum.
if you're going to shoulder the responsibility of a review thread, do it right.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Kind of weird to see people in the EG comments jump on the review.
I liked the demo a lot, but this isn't a game for everybody.
I liked the demo a lot, but this isn't a game for everybody.
The same thing happens in every thread for every exclusive game on every system. VITA-TAX? LOL.
and.. the supposed lack of depth really isn't justified.
you need to time your attacks (right before the enemy swipes at you) to unlock "Rewards"
Counter Achieved... Counter Madness... etc
and there's Elemental Vulnerability that could be chained and exploited
Inferno Hell
Frozen Hell etc
and all that gets upped into Skilful attacks when combined with the corresponding element.
It's easy to miss that in a brief playthrough but if they paid sufficient attention, these are little attention to details that would have greatly (positively) impacted their playthrough!
this is not to say that they have not raised any valid points at all
things like the VA could have been better
Lacrima accumulation could have been easier and less of a chore
(but I guess the main focus is the gameplay... and it seems that have missed out some important bits)
you need to time your attacks (right before the enemy swipes at you) to unlock "Rewards"
Counter Achieved... Counter Madness... etc
and there's Elemental Vulnerability that could be chained and exploited
Inferno Hell
Frozen Hell etc
and all that gets upped into Skilful attacks when combined with the corresponding element.
It's easy to miss that in a brief playthrough but if they paid sufficient attention, these are little attention to details that would have greatly (positively) impacted their playthrough!
this is not to say that they have not raised any valid points at all
things like the VA could have been better
Lacrima accumulation could have been easier and less of a chore
(but I guess the main focus is the gameplay... and it seems that have missed out some important bits)
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.
The statement in bold is exactly how I feel, to be honest. I'm picking my copy up later in the day, but I'm not foaming at the mouth to play this. I love action RPGs, but the arena-like nature of these Monster Hunter-type games really puts me off. I'd honestly rather have Ys Celceta today than Soul Sacrifice, lol! The setting, atmosphere, and monster design looks cool enough to me to give Sacrifice a run though. I don't see myself obsessively playing this, however.
I got my Monster Hunter-game fill back on the original Wii with Tri. I put nearly 200 hours into the game, including both single player and multiplayer. It was a lot fun and I'm glad I experienced a game like that, but I don't think I would ever do it again and it's the reason why I stayed away from the Wii U update. I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, but I feel like MMO/Monster Hunter-like games lack fulfillment when you reach the "end". True, you could say this about any RPG/game where you invest 100's of hours, but it feels more transparent in a game like this. That's at least how I felt after putting in all of those hours into Tri.
I think the fun in these types of games is the journey to that end-game point, but once you invest those 100-200+ some hours and see that last quest to the end, you're left with practically nothing. There's no meaningful story, characters, themes or messages to reflect upon. Instead, you're left with the memories of grinding a mission for a rare drop and the handful of moments where you and your buddies took down a tough boss. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with that. Clearly, people love MMOs and Monster Hunter and it's fun to just group with some buddies and take down some dudes, but for me, it's not my desired type of game. So, I completely understand why some people would be turned off by this game.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Imagine if they gave Halo 4 or Super Mario a 6 because it was just a game where you shoot people or run right and jump. Calling this a button masher and repetitive is not even giving the game a chance.
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.
think a fellow VitaMuffin who played the Japanese version mentioned there were larger levels in the later parts of the game. Not sure on the exploration bit though.
In some of the videos I've watched, I remember seeing one level being split into two... so the player basically have to travel up and down (a cliff of sort)... not sure if that counts to anything but it at least hints of some variety in the arena-design (not just a flat out terrain with different themes)
It's a conspiracy!
Don't you see his monster hunteresque avatar? He wants to bury soul sacrifice to let monster hunter survive! This is the only explanation to the not updated op and to the lower scores being the first ones!
i'm joking lol 
No need to attack the guy. You don't know his personal commitments or potential hiccups that life throw up.
Chill out.
Sure, buddy. Not like there is any history of Vita games getting constantly 5%-10% lower score averages than console counterparts for no reason whatsoever. Even the exclusives follow that problem. Motorstorm RC Vita - 77%, Motorstorm RC PS3- 82%
Completely ridiculous, and you stating that people in here have confirmation bias just shows how biased you are towards the opinions presented here instead of actually thinking about the arguments presented, which are very valid.
Add that on top of the lies, inconsistencies and low playtime of some of those reviewers and you got a pretty solid argument against quite a few of these reviews.
If we add the Vita tax on top of the average 74% review score, it lands at a 79-84% score, which sounds fair to me considering the widespread use of the 5-10 scale.
I haven't played it myself, but what if the Vita version of Motorstorm RC is worse than the PS3 version?
It's the same game isn't it? Did Sound shapes get a higher score on PS3 than Vita? That one is the same game definately.
I did, and it isnt.
Sound Shapes is actually scored higher on Vita, but its the odd one out. We had a big discussion about that a few months ago where we searched through a few reviews and found that Vita games were often either critiqued for "not being PS3 enough" or "not being handheld enough", which seemingly arbitrarily detracts review points for no proper reason.
It is the exact same game.
When playing the demo I really couldnt get over the control mechanics, which seemed to want to hinder you in every way possible. Iinstead of just blocking and attacking, then going back to blocking, you are stuck either being fully offensive (with literally two combos), or fully defensive with horribly weak attacks. Just didnt find it fun. Really wish I could go back and forth between spells quickly instead of being dedicated to just one when I want to attack or block.
Jawmuncher
Member
Forgot this came out today. I plan on grabbing it but not soon. Have to much on my vita to play ATM.
So the performance is exactly the same on both systems? No specific glitches or anything?
michaelius
Banned
Why aren't all Wii games having 40-50 metacritic score? They look like shit compared to PS3/X360 games.
I actually think the Vita suits the game better for highscore pick up and play style gaming and I prefer the Vita buttons over the PS3 ones for this game too. Performance wise its identical other than a lower res for the Vita platform.
graywolf323
Member
RPGFan's review is up
http://www.rpgfan.com/reviews/Soul_Sacrifice/index.html
I like the opening statement
"It's the sort of thing you'd get if you combined the 1000 Years of Dreams from Lost Odyssey with Phantom Dust and Monster Hunter."
overall it got a 85%
http://www.rpgfan.com/reviews/Soul_Sacrifice/index.html
I like the opening statement
"It's the sort of thing you'd get if you combined the 1000 Years of Dreams from Lost Odyssey with Phantom Dust and Monster Hunter."
overall it got a 85%
both sit at 84 actually.
Many do. However it not just based on graphics thankfully.
Actually I don't think many arguments can be levelled at SS graphics. I think there pretty decent IMHO.
I think that instance is a matter of splitting hairs over a mere 5-point differential. If it was more than 10 points, I could see this conspiracy theory having roots, but that sounds like your average statistical noise at work, not punishment.
I actually looked up Sly 4's reviews for both platforms, and I was surprised to see them at an identical 75. Of course, the Vita has the advantage of having drastically smaller review count to pull from, but that's definitely an instance where lower scores for the Vita version would be totally justified, due to its rather lacking framerate and the absence of the series' defining cel-shading technique. From what it sounds like, the lack of polish and features in the Vita version of MLB 13 also justify the lower scores it has received.
That's fair enough.
I personally think little big planet is better on Vita. PS3 version hit a 95. Vita an 88.
The PS3 was scored in 2008 though so time has had an effect.
I'm biased because I think the idea of coming up with a percentage to add to vita metacritic averages is insane? Okay buddy.
Infinite_Daremo
Member
Nice review. I feel like playing that Phantom Dust now ....
decided to list some of my thoughts in response to some of the reviews
Some of the big sites are commenting how the game suffers from a lack of in-depth gameplay. Personally, I don't think that's true and here's why
(1) The timing of your attacks matters!
You need to time your attacks (right before the enemy swipes at you) to unlock "Rewards" that would affect the kind of loot you get at the end of the battle. You can get the following "Rewards" when you time your attack properly
Counter Achieved... Many Counters... Counter Madness... etc
(2) The combination of your attacks/spells matters!
There is Elemental Vulnerability in this game which you can choose to chain and exploit
Burn the enemy sufficiently... and it'll collapse in Inferno Hell (set ablazed)
Freeze the enemy sufficiently... and it'll be stuck in Frozen Hell (frozen in its tracks)
Jolt the enemy sufficiently... and it'll be stuck in a Stasis (paralysis)
but it does not end there... when you attack them with the right element in the aforementioned states... you unlock the Skilful Attack Reward
So jolt the enemy when it is in Frozen Hell and you'll see the ice break apart and cause an amazing amount of damage!
(3) The kind of spells you use matters!
Some reviewers have mentioned it's a button-mashing game. NO! you can't mash them when you have limited casts (you need to renew them if you run out of casts during battle.. and renewals don't come easily)
You can set up a shield to knock a charging enemy. While it's fumbling to get on its feet, steal the chance to get a few hits!
You can set up trees that bear fruits (that give power-ups to you/allies when consumed) or to distract enemies/bosses as they try to consume it!
(4) Where you hit the enemy/boss matters!
Is it really a spammy game where you find the best spells and just fire away? Not necessarily... Other than the elemental vulnerabilities explained earlier, bosses have specific cursed parts (weak points) that you can attack and exploit. If you were to destroy all the cursed points, you'll notice the enemy showing a difference in its movement (staggering? I noticed this for the Cerberus in the demo). So getting spells to hit those specific parts matter!
(5) To save or to sacrifice, your choice matters!
This is probably something that Creator Inafune intended as a focal point of the game. Battles can get challenging and the player is forced to make sacrifices to defeat the bosses. You can choose to engage in the Forbidden Arts (Black Rites) that sacrifice a player attribute (defence/attack/speed/sight/etc) to deal tremendous damage to the enemies or hold them in place, etc.
Beyond that, when your ally falls, you choose whether to save them (at the cost of a portion of your health) or sacrifice them to deal an insane amount of damage to the enemy and lose the ally forever (well at least for the rest of the battle). When you fall, you make the choice whether to call for your allies to save or sacrifice you! The story/single-player mode plays alot into these as your hard-earned (saved) allies may choose to leave you if you were to sacrifice/save defeated bosses that is against their alignment
---
I did take some time to warm up to Soul Sacrifice but that is largely due to its macabre theme that was rather unsettling... (the sacrifice animation still makes me quite uncomfortable) but the gameplay is awesomely fun! looking forward to some really awesome battles with some of you!
Some of the big sites are commenting how the game suffers from a lack of in-depth gameplay. Personally, I don't think that's true and here's why
(1) The timing of your attacks matters!
You need to time your attacks (right before the enemy swipes at you) to unlock "Rewards" that would affect the kind of loot you get at the end of the battle. You can get the following "Rewards" when you time your attack properly
Counter Achieved... Many Counters... Counter Madness... etc
(2) The combination of your attacks/spells matters!
There is Elemental Vulnerability in this game which you can choose to chain and exploit
Burn the enemy sufficiently... and it'll collapse in Inferno Hell (set ablazed)
Freeze the enemy sufficiently... and it'll be stuck in Frozen Hell (frozen in its tracks)
Jolt the enemy sufficiently... and it'll be stuck in a Stasis (paralysis)
but it does not end there... when you attack them with the right element in the aforementioned states... you unlock the Skilful Attack Reward
So jolt the enemy when it is in Frozen Hell and you'll see the ice break apart and cause an amazing amount of damage!
(3) The kind of spells you use matters!
Some reviewers have mentioned it's a button-mashing game. NO! you can't mash them when you have limited casts (you need to renew them if you run out of casts during battle.. and renewals don't come easily)
You can set up a shield to knock a charging enemy. While it's fumbling to get on its feet, steal the chance to get a few hits!
You can set up trees that bear fruits (that give power-ups to you/allies when consumed) or to distract enemies/bosses as they try to consume it!
(4) Where you hit the enemy/boss matters!
Is it really a spammy game where you find the best spells and just fire away? Not necessarily... Other than the elemental vulnerabilities explained earlier, bosses have specific cursed parts (weak points) that you can attack and exploit. If you were to destroy all the cursed points, you'll notice the enemy showing a difference in its movement (staggering? I noticed this for the Cerberus in the demo). So getting spells to hit those specific parts matter!
(5) To save or to sacrifice, your choice matters!
This is probably something that Creator Inafune intended as a focal point of the game. Battles can get challenging and the player is forced to make sacrifices to defeat the bosses. You can choose to engage in the Forbidden Arts (Black Rites) that sacrifice a player attribute (defence/attack/speed/sight/etc) to deal tremendous damage to the enemies or hold them in place, etc.
Beyond that, when your ally falls, you choose whether to save them (at the cost of a portion of your health) or sacrifice them to deal an insane amount of damage to the enemy and lose the ally forever (well at least for the rest of the battle). When you fall, you make the choice whether to call for your allies to save or sacrifice you! The story/single-player mode plays alot into these as your hard-earned (saved) allies may choose to leave you if you were to sacrifice/save defeated bosses that is against their alignment
---
I did take some time to warm up to Soul Sacrifice but that is largely due to its macabre theme that was rather unsettling... (the sacrifice animation still makes me quite uncomfortable) but the gameplay is awesomely fun! looking forward to some really awesome battles with some of you!
Aw shit, that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theory. Lol
famousmortimer
Banned
LBP Vita is the best in the series, for sure. But I attribute the lower score to series fatigue. That isn't to say that vita games don't get hosed on review scores... they do, often.
I always enjoy the line "It doesn't look as good as it's PS3 counterpart" in games that come out on both systems. Like we really even need to be told that. The Vita isn't a goddamn portable PS3. It's more like a 2.5. It's a goddamn miracle when ports like MLB and Need For Speed look as good as they do. But, nope, dock it 5-10 points.
Alright, example of people deducing points for Vita games in reviews with the following comments:
"The game is not console quality!" and detracting points for it
"The game is not suited for handhelds!" and detracting points for it
...sometimes in reviews for the SAME game, which are of course opinions that affect the score.
..instead of judging the games on their own merit. Vita games are very often hold to dubious double standards which shouldnt even be judged in the first place. How is that statistical noise?
If some reviewers constantly detract points for something that shouldnt even be judged in the first place? Then yeah, you are obviously not seeing very sharply.
Gold_Loot
Member
Yes, I'm playing the final game as I type this and I'm already seeing larger "gather" type quests in more open areas.
It's not Monster Hunter sized by any means, but certianly bigger than what the demo gave us.
MagicWithEarvin
Member
Schobeleth
Member
Yeah I still think it's completely unfair and lame that lots of reviewers are just taking the easy way out and saying "meh, it's too repetitive" when the genre is KNOWN for that. I'm not saying it's ok for it to just be like that, but the very nature of the game is to keep hunting monsters to get better armor and weapons, or in this case, spells.
I normally don't care about reviews when it comes to games as you guys know (I play a lot of so called badly reviewed games) but when reviews hold a game back from being considered a "system seller", I have a problem. Now lots of people who were hoping this would be an alternative to MH are going to go "welp, that's that, I'll just stick with MH" .....
Dont worry about it, the wait for the release is straining peoples nerves
Exactly.
Which reviewers are constantly deducting points based on your weird criteria? I wasn't under the impression that any news outlet is transparent with the score sheets. Give me links to specific reviewers who have systematically done that for multiplatform games that are the exact same game and fine. Confirmation bias is one thing but you have gone and created some special world with reviewers that are against the idea of handhelds.
Better idea for a 2 word phrase that gets the point across?
I thought this is nothing like Monster hunter.
Vita scandal.
MagicWithEarvin
Member
The only thing they have in common is 4-player co-op monster quests, but it ends there. The gameplay mechanics are vastly different. Vastly.
Bias adjustment
Please do the research yourself. Its something we picked up over and over and over again since over a year now. Its not something a certain reviewer did constantly, but a certain sentiment that you see again and again in reviews. It doesnt matter who does it. If different reviewers both detract points for it in reviews of the SAME game, then its an arbitrary point value that Vita games get scored against. Most reviewers that do it probably arent even consciously realising what they are scoring. Please catch up on the.. 500 or so Vita game reviews that I read in the past year and get back to me when you caught up with it.
Its just overall back to the point that most reviewers arent doing the work they should be doing - Writing up informed and informative reviews.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Is Vita tax the new iteration of the anti-Japan bias that Resident Evil 6 exposed?
Schobeleth
Member
It's essentially the same core concept, IMO. Choose quest - go into area - hunt monsters - get better gear. The only different in this game is that you're not farming materials to make armors and weapons, you're farming souls and spells. There's also the duality between saving and sacrificing.
IMO it's much deeper, plus there's actually .... A STORY! It's a great story so far IMO, if the demo is anything to go by. It's just dumb, how they're just not giving it a chance because they sound jaded imo.
Sigh. I give up.
Infinite_Daremo
Member
First day i ever heard it and i've owned a Vita from Day 1. The phrase makes me sad.
Similar threads
- Poll