New Review Posted: Way of the Samurai 2

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Chi Kong Lui saw a certain episode of a certain TV show, and he wasn't at all happy about it:

"On a September 2004 episode of X-Play on the G4 Tech TV cable network, Way of the Samurai 2 was reviewed and given the negative rating of two out of five stars. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, what I found particularly disturbing was this comment: "The open ended gameplay is similar to Grand Theft Auto 3 (GTA3) , but at times feels too loose." Why did X-Play decide the two were similar in gameplay? "

The rest of the critique is available here.

[legendarypegasu]

I agree with Walter. Simply a great review Chi. I appreciate how you addressed what you saw as unfair criticisms of the game. I'm going to be looking to pick this one up as soon as I see it at EB or gamestop.

[Snack Eater]

X-Play is one of the few shows that makes me angry and embarassed, even though I'm mostly the only person in the room. And I still watch it. While it is juvenile, amateurish, and anti-intellectual, it's still a helluva lot better than the rest of that G4 crap, in that the hosts don't give off the "We play games. Isn't that COOOOL, MAN?!" vibe.

This game intrigues me. It would be next on my to-buy list (which is pretty short), but God of War looks more intriguing, since it combines gore, Greeks, and jiggling tatas.

[Doorselfin]

Such a long overdue review. I remember picking up Way of the Samurai 2 when it was first released and played the hell of it, all the while thinking "I wonder what Chi thinks of it?".

His review of the original game made me purchase a copy almost instantly and I adored it so. I remember reading all the negative reviews of the sequel, which got me down. But now I feel like wiping my save files and experiencing it all over again. Thanks, Chi!

[Reharl]

Great job with the review, Chi, and especially with the way you addressed the common (and lamentable) misconceptions everyone seems keen to make whenever a game shows any hint of interaction on a free-roaming environment.

I think you could have put more emphasis on the mechanical aspects of the game (for instance, I found that the new save system stripped the game from the urgency present in WotS 1, that the amount of days the player had to spend was in direct disproportion with the amount of menial task appointed to him, and that the one-stab-kills made every battle a chore). However, yours is a review that does the game justice, and one that I largely agree with.

[Chi Kong Lui]

Wow. Thanks for reading and the positive feedback everyone. Especially to Reharl for getting me off my duff and finishing the review. I've been on a bit of a roll since and have 3 more draft reviews already keyed into my Treo 600.

Originally Posted by Reharl

I think you could have put more emphasis on the mechanical aspects of the game (for instance, I found that the new save system stripped the game from the urgency present in WotS 1, that the amount of days the player had to spend was in direct disproportion with the amount of menial task appointed to him, and that the one-stab-kills made every battle a chore). However, yours is a review that does the game justice, and one that I largely agree with.

I managed to address the save system in part 1 vs 2 and felt the game was less immersive, but at the same time necessary given the length of the game. While I miss the urgency, I didn't think it hurt the game in the long run. I would be interesting to see how the game plays with the old save system.

You saying there was too much time or not enough time?

The one stab insta-kills are the same in part 1 and 2, so I don't know what's the difference. The X-play also criticized the insta-kills saying that it made the battles meaningless since everyone could die with one shot. They failed to mention that this only applies to the scrubs and not the true warriors in the game. I had to let this comment go in the review for the sake of clarity. I also found it damning that they would even go there when you consider that in most Samurai movies, most scrubs are killed in one slice.

The one issue that was close to making to the review was the upgrade system. I don't mind random numbers, but why must it be negative? The process of upgrading swords was too much work and effort. I probably would have played the game 10 times more if upgrading the swords wasn't such a chore, but this mostly applies to power users who don't mind MMO style grinding.

Chi

[Reharl]

I should have been more clear, but I meant there was too much time available to the player, and that the tasks each faction gave you were in a limited number. By day two you have already depleted all the possible jobs, and then all you can do is repeat them, change faction, or hibernate in your home.

Part of why I think this destroys the flow of the game is connected to nature of the scripted events. WotS relies on the player to be in the right place at the right time, which can be en entirely random and arbitrary action. Now, I like that, and I loved how everything seemed to change whenever you picked a different road in a different time of the day in WotS 1. In part 2, however, days have five portions, if memory serves me correctly, and don't always end when you visit an area. That means you can cover two or three areas per time period, ten to fifteen areas per day. And there's not a whole lot going on to make you busy. Then let's say you meet some thugs and trash them. Then the corrupt magistrate catches your eye. How to follow that plotline up until the ending? The player is left with no visible leads or hints on what to do. And no enticing jobs to spend time with, either.

That is my main gripe with the game. In WotS, you were always on the run, constantly in the heat of something. You could see a chain of events unfold before your eyes. In the second game, that has been diluted. The city is a large place, and knowing who to meet, when and where in order to get what ending is a much bigger chore than it ever was in WotS 1. That's not to say WotS1 was entirely clear in its directions and plotlines, but it made up for that. One, through jam-packed days and time periods. Two, with a small, cosy environment where you could test out your various choices and witness their consequences in almost real time.

(Now, to anyone who hasn't played WotS 2, don't let this discourage you. It's not that much of a flaw, if you take it at face value. I still wholeheartedly recommend this game to anyone with a PS2.)

Lastly, there is a great difference in the one-stab kills present in the first game and this one. In the first, you could unbalance your opponent and then unleash some mad combo on the poor sap, but you wouldn't kill him outright unless you had a suped up sword or were playing in the lower levels. In WotS 2, no matter what sword you have, no matter what skill or what moves you've learned, you can kill the common folk in one go, with one button. All you need to do is unbalance (made easy through the visual cues) them and then press triangule, iirc. I would prefer some more challenge, as even a scrub could slice you in real life. Fortunately, playing the game on extreme mode makes you as vulnerable as them: one true hit and you're a goner.

And yeah, the upgrading system is whack. I much prefered the funky scrolls from the first game. I miss Awase, too.

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by Reharl

I should have been more clear, but I meant there was too much time available to the player, and that the tasks each faction gave you were in a limited number. By day two you have already depleted all the possible jobs, and then all you can do is repeat them, change faction, or hibernate in your home.

Earning cash is key because you can't survive without items. I never really felt bored because I was always hustling to get cash and not rest too much (there's strategy to maximizing one's efforts). While the jobs are repetitive, upgrading the sword, finding challenges at night and the tons of secrets that inhibit the land generally kept me busy between story events.

Originally Posted by Reharl

In part 2, however, days have five portions, if memory serves me correctly, and don't always end when you visit an area. That means you can cover two or three areas per time period, ten to fifteen areas per day. And there's not a whole lot going on to make you busy. Then let's say you meet some thugs and trash them. Then the corrupt magistrate catches your eye. How to follow that plotline up until the ending? The player is left with no visible leads or hints on what to do. And no enticing jobs to spend time with, either.

Did you use the status screen in the pause menu? There were clear hints as to what you could possibly do next. I know what you mean about the scripting, but I don't think its so obvious. I personally do see the seams because the navigation can be just so complicated.

Originally Posted by Reharl

Lastly, there is a great difference in the one-stab kills present in the first game and this one. In the first, you could unbalance your opponent and then unleash some mad combo on the poor sap, but you wouldn't kill him outright unless you had a suped up sword or were playing in the lower levels. In WotS 2, no matter what sword you have, no matter what skill or what moves you've learned, you can kill the common folk in one go, with one button. All you need to do is unbalance (made easy through the visual cues) them and then press triangule, iirc. I would prefer some more challenge, as even a scrub could slice you in real life. Fortunately, playing the game on extreme mode makes you as vulnerable as them: one true hit and you're a goner.

I honestly did not notice the difference in part 1. I naturally assumed it was the same in the first one. While I agree that it added a little more, I never felt that part 2 was short on challenge. Mainly because there's no free health recovery other than sleeping (no free turnips). So I was constantly "wounded" and that made battles more difficult. Even with a powerful sword, death was a frequent occurence for me.

Chi