RPGamer Slams L.A 2

[Zeta_Nova]

Which they gave it a 3.0/5

+ No-frills battle system works well.
+ Humorous extras.
- Underdeveloped characters.
- Unoriginal story.
- Limited character customization.

Full review can be read here (http://www.rpgamer.com/games/lumarc/lumarc2/reviews/lumarc2strev1.html)

[Manly Biceps]

The full review text really doesn't make it seem like it deserves only a 6.0.

Anyway, you can't please everyone.

[jeffx]

I'm not sure where the "slam" is? For all their crap reviews, this is actually pretty balanced.

MB has the right idea, the score does not appropriately represent the text. This is more of a 3.25-3.5, which is what I'd expect for that game anyway.

####, the canes just scored.

[Zeta_Nova]

Well, on the outside may have a bad review. But the fact is that gamers may missing out on a really cool game. If they were to believe every word sites like these say.

[Lorinosan]

Anyway, you can't please everyone.

True enough, hence why I don't let reviews influence me into whether I buy the game or not.

[dragonlife29]

I don't see much slamming, to be honest.

One noticeable thing for me in that review was that people like spelling dialogue as dialog...seriously XD

Well, I like that they say it's an improvement over the original, which is what I was hoping for. I also like that there are set levels for online so that it's knowledge of the system that will help you win. No mention of getting spoils online, though, like in the original--was that scrapped, Manly Biceps?

The character development can be seen as an issue...but I'll have to read their review on the original and see what they said in that for the characters. If it's about the same, then there's really no worries for me on this one.

EDIT: They don't have anything on the original. Bummer.

[tross]

Well, I really don't take reviews seriously. I thought the storyline of the original LA was excellent, especially the plot twists, and character development. If the sequel is anything like the first, I'm going to have to disagree with that review. If I were to give LA a score out of 10, I would probably give it a 9. I hope the sequel is even better, though it has a lot to live up to.

[greydrak]

Seems like a crappy review, I'll wait for the RPGFan one.

Even though 3/5 is still a decent score, but I never liked rpgamer or ign/gamespot, regardless of how much of the game they say they play through. For RPGs I side with RPGFan more, they gave Eternal Poison 84% with reasonably well thought out explanations too.

[Fuyukaze]

Nintendo Power gave it a 7.0 and cited many of the same good and bad items as well. Not every game gets a good review and not every game that gets a bad review is garbage either. People should realy take reviews, reguardless of their source, with a grain of salt. If a game looks interesting and it gets bad reviews, play it anyways. Chances are, you either will agree with all the negative coverage, or enjoy it. Eh, an opinion asking people to disreguard an opinion concerning a game isnt much better off but reguardless, people are going to either play what they want or play what others tell them they should want to play. It's all up to the player which they want to be in the end.

I'm still getting it, even if it gets a D in EGM or a 1 on x-play. LA 1 was the first game I finished in 08, it must have done something right!

[frequency]

Some of my favorite games got scored badly (Wild Arms 2 comes to mind). So I more-or-less ignore the numerical score and just read the text for what it is - some dude's opinion. I won't say that reviews have never influenced me though. For example, if a game has some serious technical problems, I may pass on it.

As for LA2, I enjoyed LA. It's not great, but hey, it was good enough to play. I expected the same from LA2. To hear that there's improvements from LA actually reassures me that I'll enjoy LA2 more than LA, so... they could score it a 1 for all I care.

[ProfessorMurder]

The guy over at Crispy Gamer's "Games for Lunch" seems to love it.

http://www.crispygamer.com/columns/2008-11-18/games-for-lunch-luminous-arc-2.aspx

Here are some fun little moments:

"0:21 Quotes of the moment -- Roland: "Window? B button? What are you talking about?" Rasche: "Don't worry, I wasn't talking to you." How meta!

0:22 "Stats? Man, I hate all those little numbers ... taunting me..." Sounds like a lot of journalists I know.

0:23 "Now, Roland, go out there and be awesome." Man, how can the dialogue be so cheesy and SO AWESOME at the SAME TIME?"

...Time passes.

"0:34 Rina describes the Golem as "abnormous." Is that like abnormally enormous? That's an AWESOME word!"

I agree with the awesomeness of this word. It's abnormously awesome.

Final verdict:

"Would I play this game for more than an hour? Yes.

Why? The story and characterizations are endearingly cheesy, and the battle interface is decent, even though the battles themselves are far from interesting so far."

So it pretty much seems like the story is like the first one in a way. Either you really love what the Atlus guys did to make the characters uniquely awesome, or it's not your sense of humor/you somehow think that these characters are underdeveloped. (Note: Just because a character doesn't get a sidequest about their past doesn't mean that they don't have a distinct personality.)

[Gen Eric Gui]

3/5 is roughly what I thought of the original, so no surprises there. As long as there's not so much slowdown on big maps I'll be just fine with the game.

[ProfessorMurder]

Destructoid echoes that Lunchtime Gaming review:

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-review-luminous-arc-2-112001.phtml

[shimo]

A long review but IGN give it a 8.0/10. A good review in my opinion.

Here the link:

http://ds.ign.com/articles/931/931972p1.html

[Lorinosan]

IGN made....a good review? *eye twitch*

Tell me you're joking.

[greydrak]

IGN made....a good review? *eye twitch*

Tell me you're joking.

Wow, that's rather unexpected...

Well, RPGFan had their review out a few days ago,
http://www.rpgfan.com/reviews/luminousarc2/index.html

77% isn't too bad, though Luminous Arc did do better with 85%.

[frequency]

77% is quite good.

What on earth is with the text in that review though. The guy seems bent on turning people away from the title.

His last paragraph was:
I cannot recommend it to you. If it was March or April and you were dying for a new game, I would say to buy it cautiously....From A+ titles like Fallout 3 to handheld ports like Chrono Trigger and Star Ocean to long awaited PC games like A Vampyre Story, don't spend your precious time or money on Luminous Arc 2.

Huh? In what world is a 77% game not recommendable? I, for one, would MUCH rather have LA2 than yet another release of Chrono Trigger (as good as it is... I've already got 2 versions). Star Ocean (PSP remake) is pretty mediocre itself too. And those other games I can't play on the run.

His text doesn't match his numbers at all...

[Lorinosan]

Wow, it's like I'm living in upside down land. Only the sky is red with purple polka dots for some reason....

Yeah, I agree. I'd rather have LA2 over Chrono Trigger. I am buying the DS version but that's not the point. I already played CT like fifty million times already. Star Ocean is a remake (PSP what do you know?) and I have played it before so it's nothing special in my eyes. Fallout 3 is awesome but we're comparing a console game to hand held title here which does not compute.

What the heck is A Vampyre Story anyway?

[shimo]

IGN made....a good review? *eye twitch*

Tell me you're joking.
IGN give it a better review than the first game which got 7.5/10.Sheesh.