Red Steel 2 first Impressions

Just picked it up this morning and played for about 3 hours. Needed to stop and have some lunch.

The game seems to start off slowly as it trains you how to play. You will benefit from this introduction. However, the begining missions are short and pointless except in learning to use the controls for combat. After a while, the game starts to throw special move after special move onto your plate. That's not bad, but I would like a little more time getting used to one or two before it throws out more. To be fair, you don't have to grab multiple moves at once, but since you are in the dojo and may not return for a while, you might choose to grab them while you are there.

Nonetheless, the game's combat is quite fun, and the graphics look great. To me, this game is reminisant of the Metroid Prime series. You get this rather lonely feeling while playing the game, and you manipulate swithces, operate doors and elevators in much the same way. You also wait for doors to open much like Metroid and you are constantly blowing up crates and such in search of ammo or money (rather than health).

It is all done extremely well, and, while not one-to-one, the motion controls finally feel good. This is the type of experience the Wii promised at launch. Red Steel 2 is, so far, a great experience. Well, gotta go slice up some bad guys.

Others who bought it, please express your thoughts here.

sounds good. I'll need to give this game atleast a rent.

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

I'll buy it at a later date.

Not just because I'm waiting for a Price Drop (which I'm not), it's because I don't have money.

Its like the first half of the game is training you. Come on, take of the gloves and let me at it. The sword play is not 1:1. I do not feel like i am holding a sword . I do not feel the benefit from the Wii Motion Plus. So far the challenge has been pretty light. The gameplay does seem to be ramping up a little bit near the end of this "training" stage...i guess thats what i have been doing for the last hour. I hope it becomes more interesting soon. So far its empty streets, then three or four bad guys, then more empty streets, then 3 or 4 more bad guys. The voice acting is on the cheesy side too.

@thedude's comment

simple, devs know it, and they should make games w/ high replay value and multiplayer.

I just bought Water Warfare. im set on FPS for now. garrett_duffman

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"]I just bought Water Warfare. im set on FPS for now. Sepewrath

How are the guns? Also how do enemies react to getting hit with the blade and gun?

How are the guns? Also how do enemies react to getting hit with the blade and gun?

BigFH

armored goes ignore it but unarmored guys fall on a knee when shot from close range. they only react from swords if you hit them as hard as you can

I've played about an hour an its fun so far. I'm not really picking up on much of a story but I think its okay. And to all of the people complaing about the lack of MP I don't think it would have worked well.

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

thedude-

I might be off base here but in order for me to rent a game from somewhere someone must have purchased it first, right? For example, if I want to rent Red Steel 2 from Blockbuster, Blockbuster must have a copy of the game purchased in order for me to do so. Is that not the way it works? I would imagine the developers make the same amount of money either way. I guess the downside would be that if someone rented the game and did not like it they would not buy it, but I would put that on the developer to make a good game. I would feel worse for the person who shelled out fifty bucks for a game they thought was going to be good and got something that was less than worthwhile.

In other words, if people are not willing to put up fifty dollars for a game that is twelve hours long, but would rather rent it for ten and finish it in a couple of days, it is up to the developers to add enough appealing content that will entice people to purchase their product.

It does not make much of a difference to me as I do not consider game length when making a purchase, but I am old, have a job, and make enough money to buy a new game whenever I want one. I could see how someone with less financial resources would want to make sure they were getting the most bang for their buck.

That would be my perspective. What do you think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

How are the guns? Also how do enemies react to getting hit with the blade and gun?

BigFH

The guns are good, though I just have 3: a handgun, a shotgun, and a machine gun. I wouldn't really call this a FPS. It is more like a first person action game. Gunplay is part of the game, but it is not the most important part. Many enemies block bullets so you can't just blast your way through. Besides, the controls are such that sword fighting is more fun than shooting anyway (though if this were just an FPS, the controls would be still be great). Some enemies are best defeated by shooting them to stun them and then using a finishing move to dispose of them. Other enemies are armored and are not affected by bullets. Still others are more of a normal fare and can be gunned down at will.

And, yes, enemies react whether being shot or hit with your sword. In fact, they also react when being shot or hit by other bad guys.

The difficulty definitely ramps up. However, you learn special techniques to deal with stronger and more numerous bad guys so you don't just die repeatedly. Some may find the game too easy, but you can change the difficulty to make it more challenging. Also, sword combat isn't just standing around swinging at eachother. Each enemy type has their own strengths and weaknesses and you have to move, attack, perry, and counter effectively to be successful. Heavily armored attackers will be slow, but as you lash out and break armor off, they actually start moving faster.

Enemies aren't incredibly bright, but being caught in the middle of a group is a bad for your health. So far they don't really work together to defeat you, but other enemies are certainly programmed to attack once you engage one of them, and they will try to flank you. To survive, you must learn to fight groups and avoid focusing on one.

The game may not be deep, but the combat is, and I can't leave this post without stating once again how good this game looks. You may think Metroid Prime 3 looks good. This game looks better.

Great news! I noticed all the reviews which seem to be solid around 8.5, still have only great things to say about it!

Unfortunately here in Denver we got hit with a MASSIVE snow storm as I was leaving work and it has prevented me from going to get it today and I want to DIIIIIIIIIIIE! So....tomorrow for me :(

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

thedude-

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

BrunoBRS

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="thedude-"]

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

garrett_duffman

Except that if there was a game that you really wanted to play, but you couldn't rent it, you would be more likely to buy it.

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] money's short. i have tons of other games on my "to get" list. not the biggest FPS fan. games cost twice the US price over here. if this was 2008, i'd be buying it (only game i bought that year was brawl O_o). but i still have about 10 games for 3 consoles with release dates confirmed to spend my money on. i can't afford something i'll only play for a couple of hours and then never again.mrfokken

Except that if there was a game that you really wanted to play, but you couldn't rent it, you would be more likely to buy it.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"] agreed. and renting isnt THAT bad. Look at it this way: Lets say the average renting establishment has 10 copies of Red Steel 2 for rent. they buy 10 copies per store (lets say that there are 100,000 stores in the US, just for a number) so thats 50 dollars per game, so 500 dollars per store, so thats 50,000,000 dollars made by selling to the rental places. now lets say renting for a 5-day period is 5 dollars. it would take ten people per copy for the video stores to break even. So really, the gaming industry is being HELPED by the people who rent, to an extent. garrett_duffman

Except that if there was a game that you really wanted to play, but you couldn't rent it, you would be more likely to buy it.

Let's say that each store needs to rent each game 10 times to make their money. If one out of every 10 renters decided to buy rather than rent, the publisher would get just as much money. (10 games per 100 players) I find that is a realistic goal. I think of those gamers who are interested enough to rent a game, 10 percent or more would be a reasonable sales goal if those games were not available to rent.

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"][QUOTE="mrfokken"]

Except that if there was a game that you really wanted to play, but you couldn't rent it, you would be more likely to buy it.

mrfokken

Let's say that each store needs to rent each game 10 times to make their money. If one out of every 10 renters decided to buy rather than rent, the publisher would get just as much money. (10 games per 100 players) I find that is a realistic goal. I think of those gamers who are interested enough to rent a game, 10 percent or more would be a reasonable sales goal if those games were not available to rent.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"] you can only assume that though. not to mention, without renting, that would still be 50 million dollars that the game DIDN'T make, unless all of the copies that were going to be rented out got sold, plus the regular sales on top of that, which is not a realistic goal to set. BrunoBRS

Let's say that each store needs to rent each game 10 times to make their money. If one out of every 10 renters decided to buy rather than rent, the publisher would get just as much money. (10 games per 100 players) I find that is a realistic goal. I think of those gamers who are interested enough to rent a game, 10 percent or more would be a reasonable sales goal if those games were not available to rent.

That is where demos should come in. I like the try it before you buy it idea, but I do think rentals hurt sales of good games. On the other hand, they probably help sales for bad games.

I think developers should be rewarded for doing things right. RS2 uses motion controls better than any other game I've played for a non-sports game. It also happens to be a shining example of how Wii graphics can look, and it is fun to play. For a video game, good graphics + good controls + fun should = $. When it doesn't, developers stop making games of that genre for that platform. It is all well and good to rent games rather than buy them, but the consequence of lower sales is fewer games being developed.

Personally, I would love to see more games like RS2 developed. It is a great example of an action game on the Wii. Therefore, I hope it sells as many games as possible.

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

Euaggelistes

I might be off base here but in order for me to rent a game from somewhere someone must have purchased it first, right? For example, if I want to rent Red Steel 2 from Blockbuster, Blockbuster must have a copy of the game purchased in order for me to do so. Is that not the way it works? I would imagine the developers make the same amount of money either way. I guess the downside would be that if someone rented the game and did not like it they would not buy it, but I would put that on the developer to make a good game. I would feel worse for the person who shelled out fifty bucks for a game they thought was going to be good and got something that was less than worthwhile.

In other words, if people are not willing to put up fifty dollars for a game that is twelve hours long, but would rather rent it for ten and finish it in a couple of days, it is up to the developers to add enough appealing content that will entice people to purchase their product.

It does not make much of a difference to me as I do not consider game length when making a purchase, but I am old, have a job, and make enough money to buy a new game whenever I want one. I could see how someone with less financial resources would want to make sure they were getting the most bang for their buck.

That would be my perspective. What do you think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[QUOTE="garrett_duffman"] you can only assume that though. not to mention, without renting, that would still be 50 million dollars that the game DIDN'T make, unless all of the copies that were going to be rented out got sold, plus the regular sales on top of that, which is not a realistic goal to set. BrunoBRS

Let's say that each store needs to rent each game 10 times to make their money. If one out of every 10 renters decided to buy rather than rent, the publisher would get just as much money. (10 games per 100 players) I find that is a realistic goal. I think of those gamers who are interested enough to rent a game, 10 percent or more would be a reasonable sales goal if those games were not available to rent.

Are there multiple difficulty options?

[QUOTE="Euaggelistes"]

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

You know I wonder would developers even be motivated to make a game like RS2 if they knew it would be rented en masse because it is not a 20 hour game or it does not have a multiplayer.

I am not trying to chastize people for renting, but renting truly is the death of middle games. I cannot think of an incentive that developers have when their games are being sampled and not purchased at prices required to further their own jobs and future sequels.

thedude-

I might be off base here but in order for me to rent a game from somewhere someone must have purchased it first, right? For example, if I want to rent Red Steel 2 from Blockbuster, Blockbuster must have a copy of the game purchased in order for me to do so. Is that not the way it works? I would imagine the developers make the same amount of money either way. I guess the downside would be that if someone rented the game and did not like it they would not buy it, but I would put that on the developer to make a good game. I would feel worse for the person who shelled out fifty bucks for a game they thought was going to be good and got something that was less than worthwhile.

In other words, if people are not willing to put up fifty dollars for a game that is twelve hours long, but would rather rent it for ten and finish it in a couple of days, it is up to the developers to add enough appealing content that will entice people to purchase their product.

It does not make much of a difference to me as I do not consider game length when making a purchase, but I am old, have a job, and make enough money to buy a new game whenever I want one. I could see how someone with less financial resources would want to make sure they were getting the most bang for their buck.

That would be my perspective. What do you think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

Are there multiple difficulty options?

chex81

[QUOTE="thedude-"][QUOTE="Euaggelistes"]

I might be off base here but in order for me to rent a game from somewhere someone must have purchased it first, right? For example, if I want to rent Red Steel 2 from Blockbuster, Blockbuster must have a copy of the game purchased in order for me to do so. Is that not the way it works? I would imagine the developers make the same amount of money either way. I guess the downside would be that if someone rented the game and did not like it they would not buy it, but I would put that on the developer to make a good game. I would feel worse for the person who shelled out fifty bucks for a game they thought was going to be good and got something that was less than worthwhile.

In other words, if people are not willing to put up fifty dollars for a game that is twelve hours long, but would rather rent it for ten and finish it in a couple of days, it is up to the developers to add enough appealing content that will entice people to purchase their product.

It does not make much of a difference to me as I do not consider game length when making a purchase, but I am old, have a job, and make enough money to buy a new game whenever I want one. I could see how someone with less financial resources would want to make sure they were getting the most bang for their buck.

That would be my perspective. What do you think? Am I completely wrong on this one?

psychobrew

I never said this was charity. You can buy the game at lower price.

You can have lower quality games as long as they have multiplayer? That is a bad precedence to set. Games that are not not as good and took less work can succeed now because they have multiplayer even if the multiplayer is not that good.

Ok well then do not complain when these games are extinct. They already said they could not make RS2 at the same quality if they had to include a multiplayer. When you treat quantity as king and replay value as the end all deal breaker then thats exactly what you will get.

I never said this was charity. You can buy the game at lower price.

You can have lower quality games as long as they have multiplayer? That is a bad precedence to set. Games that are not not as good and took less work can succeed now because they have multiplayer even if the multiplayer is not that good.

thedude-

$50 for a 10 hour game with no replay value is not a very good investment.

Having said that, I did buy the game and I paid full price for it. Right now, I'm not sure if that was a good move or not since the game is not close to perfect.

[QUOTE="thedude-"]Ok well then do not complain when these games are extinct. They already said they could not make RS2 at the same quality if they had to include a multiplayer. When you treat quantity as king and replay value as the end all deal breaker then thats exactly what you will get.

I never said this was charity. You can buy the game at lower price.

You can have lower quality games as long as they have multiplayer? That is a bad precedence to set. Games that are not not as good and took less work can succeed now because they have multiplayer even if the multiplayer is not that good.

psychobrew

$50 for a 10 hour game with no replay value is not a very good investment.

Having said that, I did buy the game and I paid full price for it. Right now, I'm not sure if that was a good move or not since the game is not close to perfect.

It is all about what you want and CoD is not a good example as that is a huge franchise not to mention a port.

Edit:

Ultimately rentals are bad for the industry if they are killing off certain types of games.

Just release in Aust today ..$89AUD bundle with motion plus....just the game its $75AUD will test it out tonight :)

My first impression was, I'm in for a treat because I liked the first Red Steel. Then I played it for about 30 minutes and was taken into a world of OWIERFNAJSAKFJDFKARNWKAJREI!!!!!!!!!!! A.K.A. Awesomeness Maximus. True the Swordplay isn't full 1:1 but it is very accurate and I love the controls and everything. I'm glad my bro bought me this game!!! Me = HAPPY CAMPER!!! :D

Is there any way the game can accommodate left handed players? I'd really like to pick it up, but I'm afraid I'd have to switch up my typical control method.

Is there any way the game can accommodate left handed players? I'd really like to pick it up, but I'm afraid I'd have to switch up my typical control method.

TheSmitto

While the character holds his guns in his right hand, and you can not change that, there should be no reason you can't play left handed. He holds the sword in both hands, but he is right handed. It shouldn't make any difference which hand you hold the remote in. Swings are left or right, up or down, no matter which hand you hold the remote in.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="thedude-"]Ok well then do not complain when these games are extinct. They already said they could not make RS2 at the same quality if they had to include a multiplayer. When you treat quantity as king and replay value as the end all deal breaker then thats exactly what you will get.

I never said this was charity. You can buy the game at lower price.

You can have lower quality games as long as they have multiplayer? That is a bad precedence to set. Games that are not not as good and took less work can succeed now because they have multiplayer even if the multiplayer is not that good.

thedude-

$50 for a 10 hour game with no replay value is not a very good investment.

Having said that, I did buy the game and I paid full price for it. Right now, I'm not sure if that was a good move or not since the game is not close to perfect.

It is all about what you want and CoD is not a good example as that is a huge franchise not to mention a port.

Edit:

Ultimately rentals are bad for the industry if they are killing off certain types of games.

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] They are feeding you propaganda. Of course they could give the game multiplayer and keep the same quality (for single player). It's just a question of time and budget. It was a business decision, pure and simple. If the quality isn't up to a certain standard then I've lost interest anyway. Look at Modern Warfare Reflex. Look at Monster Hunter Tri. Both are high quality games that give you hours and hours of fun.

$50 for a 10 hour game with no replay value is not a very good investment.

Having said that, I did buy the game and I paid full price for it. Right now, I'm not sure if that was a good move or not since the game is not close to perfect.

BrunoBRS

It is all about what you want and CoD is not a good example as that is a huge franchise not to mention a port.

Edit:

Ultimately rentals are bad for the industry if they are killing off certain types of games.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="thedude-"] And once again you put replayability as the premium. No they could not given the money and time that was their best and their best is looking pretty good from this point of view. But again that is fine, you do not like these type of games where they could have a great single player only experience, just do not expect them to continue to exist.

It is all about what you want and CoD is not a good example as that is a huge franchise not to mention a port.

Edit:

Ultimately rentals are bad for the industry if they are killing off certain types of games.

thedude-

[QUOTE="thedude-"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] you're sounding like those guys that make the "buy this game!" threads... it's not because they need money and their title is having trouble selling that i should feel forced to buy it, for their sake. it's sad that little king's story failed commercially, for example, but you can't go "if you don't buy this, be prepared for the extinction of the genre on the wii!" to force people to buy a 10-15 hour game with nothing to do after beating it.BrunoBRS