Where did Red Steel 2 go wrong?

http://wii.ign.com/articles/111/1112830p1.html

I think they are making excuses. In today's market, unless it's a platformer then a game without onlineis basically half a game. I also think they erred on the graphical sty|e(I know some people here love it, but it really only appeals to a niche audience,at least for this type of game). The movement felt a little off as well-- they fully admit the controls weren't one to one (basically said we couldn't handle one to one controls) and the special moves were over the top (just give me a serious game with one to one sword fighting, please). Finally, this game was full of corridors, yet somehow, the reviewers passed over that issue while heavily criticizing other games for the same thing. The game just feltconfined and restrictive to me.

Hardcore game on Wii is a no-no.

When talking about the majority of the wii audiences.

Replayability is where they went wrong.

Red Steel 1 was apparently horrible but it at least had local Multiplayer for Replayability.

Red Steel 2 had a New Experience with Motion Plus but nothing to go back to to play the game again.

With that said, It's a great game that I think everyone should play.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/111/1112830p1.html

I think they are making excuses. In today's market, unless it's a platformer then a game without onlineis basically half a game. I also think they erred on the graphical sty|e(I know some people here love it, but it really only appeals to a niche audience,at least for this type of game). The movement felt a little off as well-- they fully admit the controls weren't one to one (basically said we couldn't handle one to one controls) and the special moves were over the top (just give me a serious game with one to one sword fighting, please). Finally, this game was full of corridors, yet somehow, the reviewers passed over that issue while heavily criticizing other games for the same thing. The game just feltconfined and restrictive to me.

psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

http://wii.ign.com/articles/111/1112830p1.html

I think they are making excuses. In today's market, unless it's a platformer then a game without onlineis basically half a game. I also think they erred on the graphical sty|e(I know some people here love it, but it really only appeals to a niche audience,at least for this type of game). The movement felt a little off as well-- they fully admit the controls weren't one to one (basically said we couldn't handle one to one controls) and the special moves were over the top (just give me a serious game with one to one sword fighting, please). Finally, this game was full of corridors, yet somehow, the reviewers passed over that issue while heavily criticizing other games for the same thing. The game just feltconfined and restrictive to me.

trugs26

1) Platformers don't need online. Wii fit didn't need online. Lego Star Wars and Rayman Raving Rabbids are designed forkids so online isn't neccessary.

2) Look at all the top selling games -- which of them have similar graphics to RS2? None. They should have gone for something a little darker and a little more realistic instead of catering to a niche.

3) You give the same excuse Ubisoft did, and no, the feel wasn't that good. The controls were somewhat dissapointing.

4) Again, niche. The game was goofy. How many top selling games are over the top like that?

Wow, I was just going to post on this.

However, I disagree. I believe Red Steel 2 is one of the best games on the Wii. While you may have felt claustrophobic, it was much less corridor oriented than games like the Metroid Prime series and no on complains about them.

RS 2 controls may not be one to one, but they are far superior to any other motion control game to date, feel awesome, and make for a gaming experience unlike anything else currently available.

No, the fighting mechanics are not realistic, but I find the special moves give me more options and variety on how to handle enemies, and make the gameplay more fun than a sword simulator would be. No one complains about the unrealistic abilities of heros in other games.

Lack of multiplayer made it half a game? Nonsense. Even if it had online multiplayer, people would have complained as any lag whatsoever would have ruined the experience.

Why didn't it sell?

In my opinion:

1. Too many people associated it with the first Red Steel (They have almost nothing in common)

2. Few people understand the benefits of motion plus. (Sword play is amazing)

3. Wii owners don't trust 3rd parties, even when the games get good ratings. (Wii owners: wake up. this is a good game)

I think he's right that gamers who'd usually want to play a game like Red Steel 2 aren't really willing to physically exert themselves. The comparison to Resort doesn't make much sense because that's a totally different audience with a totally different type of game. RS2 is single player... a lot of the fun of motion controls is looking like an idiot with a group of people.

But aside from that, I think Ubisoft could've gotten those people to care with more.. spectacular parts in the game to show off in ads. The focus of the game is combat, which is REALLY fun, but they couldn't really demonstrate that in ads. Basically, they needed to make the game a lot better in order to really reel in everyone they could. As it is, the game is too slow-paced and unvarying to really catch people's eyes, especially if they're not really interested in "flailing their arms all around," like so many people view motion controls.

I think everything else is secondary to that. Advertising is important, and a game needs the proper material to show in ads to make them effective. RS2 hardly even had any bosses to show off, and almost no set-piece sequence (except for one near the beginning).

Red Steel 2 didn't go wrong, publishers did.

Publishers had the chance to create a hardcore fanbase fr the wii, but instead they dicked around and just made a bunch of terrible games. After so many early wii adopters had to put up with crap like Farcry, the first Red Steel, and Call of Duty 3, no one should be surprised that there are no hardcore wii gamers.

If instead they had bothered to put any effort into what they were releasing for the wii, maybe today would be a different story.

Red Steel 2 didn't go wrong, publishers did.

Publishers had the chance to create a hardcore fanbase fr the wii, but instead they dicked around and just made a bunch of terrible games. After so many early wii adopters had to put up with crap like Farcry, the first Red Steel, and Call of Duty 3, no one should be surprised that there are no hardcore wii gamers.

If instead they had bothered to put any effort into what they were releasing for the wii, maybe today would be a different story.

Some possible responses to your criticism:
1. No online: Neither does NSMB:Wii, Wii Fit, SMG, Lego Star Wars, Rayman Raving Rabbids. Which are high selling games

trugs26

uh...New Super Mario Bros. Wii had a World 9 which only unlocked all it's levels if you got all the Medals in all the Levels in each of the 8 worlds, Plus it had Multiplayers. IOW, Replayability.

WiiFit was to get you..."Fit". So obviously you had to keep coming back to the game everyday. IOW, Replayability.

Super Mario Galaxy had at least 200 stars that includes the Comets and the secret Galaxys, IOW, Replayability.

Lego Games have a lot of characters to unlock and extra treasures to seek in each level, IOW, Replayability.

Rayman Raving Rabbids was a Party game so...you'll be playing the mini games all the time in a Party...

I don't even need to say the Word again.

Red Steel 2 was Fun but lacked the Replayability that those games have.

When you beat the game there isn't anything left for you to go back to unless you want to speedrun it.

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

http://wii.ign.com/articles/111/1112830p1.html

I think they are making excuses. In today's market, unless it's a platformer then a game without onlineis basically half a game. I also think they erred on the graphical sty|e(I know some people here love it, but it really only appeals to a niche audience,at least for this type of game). The movement felt a little off as well-- they fully admit the controls weren't one to one (basically said we couldn't handle one to one controls) and the special moves were over the top (just give me a serious game with one to one sword fighting, please). Finally, this game was full of corridors, yet somehow, the reviewers passed over that issue while heavily criticizing other games for the same thing. The game just feltconfined and restrictive to me.

psychobrew

1) Platformers don't need online. Wii fit didn't need online. Lego Star Wars and Rayman Raving Rabbids are designed forkids so online isn't neccessary.

2) Look at all the top selling games -- which of them have similar graphics to RS2? None. They should have gone for something a little darker and a little more realistic instead of catering to a niche.

3) You give the same excuse Ubisoft did, and no, the feel wasn't that good. The controls were somewhat dissapointing.

4) Again, niche. The game was goofy. How many top selling games are over the top like that?

[QUOTE="trugs26"]
Some possible responses to your criticism:
1. No online: Neither does NSMB:Wii, Wii Fit, SMG, Lego Star Wars, Rayman Raving Rabbids. Which are high selling games

LegatoSkyheart

uh...New Super Mario Bros. Wii had a World 9 which only unlocked all it's levels if you got all the Medals in all the Levels in each of the 8 worlds, Plus it had Multiplayers. IOW, Replayability.

WiiFit was to get you..."Fit". So obviously you had to keep coming back to the game everyday. IOW, Replayability.

Super Mario Galaxy had at least 200 stars that includes the Comets and the secret Galaxys, IOW, Replayability.

Lego Games have a lot of characters to unlock and extra treasures to seek in each level, IOW, Replayability.

Rayman Raving Rabbids was a Party game so...you'll be playing the mini games all the time in a Party...

I don't even need to say the Word again.

Red Steel 2 was Fun but lacked the Replayability that those games have.

When you beat the game there isn't anything left for you to go back to unless you want to speedrun it.

Allow player to choose weapon to use - either gun or sword to finish the game?..rather than having them strongly focus on one or the other...that's my dislike abt RS2 ...but other than that I thought it was a good game.

Allow player to choose weapon to use - either gun or sword to finish the game?..rather than having them strongly focus on one or the other...that's my dislike abt RS2 ...but other than that I thought it was a good game.

superbuuman

Who would ever choose to fight with a sword then? There's a reason swords aren't used in warfare anymore.

Also, you sorta can do that already. By the time you get that bullet time ability, you can defeat nealry every enemy with bullets alone.

I own nd played the game, so I'm already fully aware that Red Steel 2 did not go wrong.

well one the fact it had no multiplayer at all so once you beat it the games as useful as a peice of dirt, and the fact the first one sucked really bad and i nevr even played the second one for these reasons

By having a shoddy predecessor and using interesting art direction and controls to cover up a dull game.

Red Steel 2 was Fun but lacked the Replayability that those games have.

When you beat the game there isn't anything left for you to go back to unless you want to speedrun it.LegatoSkyheart

And online multiplayer would be hard to pull off due to the nature of the gameplay, and the devs basically said that they didn't have enough time to implement it. So if they had tried, it probably would've sucked terribly, and the single player would've probably suffered as well. It's kind of a shame, because the shooting mechanics in RS2 feel about as good as they do in MP3. They'd have to add a LOT more weapons and retool the way swordplay works, though.

[QUOTE="superbuuman"]

Allow player to choose weapon to use - either gun or sword to finish the game?..rather than having them strongly focus on one or the other...that's my dislike abt RS2 ...but other than that I thought it was a good game.

goblaa

Who would ever choose to fight with a sword then? There's a reason swords aren't used in warfare anymore.

Also, you sorta can do that already. By the time you get that bullet time ability, you can defeat nealry every enemy with bullets alone.

And that's another problem. They should have stuck with swords and crossbows. The game comes accross as being confused as to what it's trying to do.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]Red Steel 2 was Fun but lacked the Replayability that those games have.

When you beat the game there isn't anything left for you to go back to unless you want to speedrun it.JordanElek

And online multiplayer would be hard to pull off due to the nature of the gameplay, and the devs basically said that they didn't have enough time to implement it. So if they had tried, it probably would've sucked terribly, and the single player would've probably suffered as well. It's kind of a shame, because the shooting mechanics in RS2 feel about as good as they do in MP3. They'd have to add a LOT more weapons and retool the way swordplay works, though.

If the goal was a quality game though, they would have taken the time to get it right. Instead, they wanted to rush a product to make a quick buck, and in some cases, it shows.

If the goal was a quality game though, they would have taken the time to get it right. Instead, they wanted to rush a product to make a quick buck, and in some cases, it shows.psychobrew

If the goal was a quality game though, they would have taken the time to get it right. Instead, they wanted to rush a product to make a quick buck, and in some cases, it shows.

psychobrew

Huh?

A quick buck how? It's one of the best looking Wii games from a third party, it plays extremely well and it's fun.

You're doing it wrong.

It was a good game with no huge flaws, but the main point was hitting stuff and that misses the Wiis audience

It could also have to do with the fact that 50 euros is a bit on the steep side for a 7-hour game.

It was a good game with no huge flaws, but the main point was hitting stuff and that misses the Wiis audience

Cruse34

It could also have to do with the fact that 50 euros is a bit on the steep side for a 7-hour game.

DraugenCP

Red Steel 2 was a Great Game. I actually enjoyed Red Steel 1 quite a bit as well.

The only things I can say about Red Steel 2 was No Marketing and No Online or Local Multiplayer. Other than that, the game is great.

I actually enjoyed playing it but the storyline is so bad like lin the end he breakes his katana "the magicaly forged katana whitch wields immense powers"

I should have bought it a few more times....

2) Look at all the top selling games -- which of them have similar graphics to RS2? None. They should have gone for something a little darker and a little more realistic instead of catering to a niche.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

2) Look at all the top selling games -- which of them have similar graphics to RS2? None. They should have gone for something a little darker and a little more realistic instead of catering to a niche.

AmnesiaHaze

Good point. Too bad this RS2 wasn't a little more like it.

I think he nailed the cons right on the head. Except the hardcore one. I think he's correct when he says that not all the hardcore base has a Wii, but I think people take this too far, as to say, that the Wii has no hardcore fanbase. I think the holiday release window, doubts about the sequel due to the first one's suckage, and the piracy may be the bigger factors. In fact I wonder how much the piracy factor affects all Wii games. I would wager that a lot of the hardcore Wii gamers pirate their games, which is why we see such dismal sales for hardcore Wii games vs Casual Wii games.

I think he nailed the cons right on the head. Except the hardcore one. I think he's correct when he says that not all the hardcore base has a Wii, but I think people take this too far, as to say, that the Wii has no hardcore fanbase.Jamisonia

I think this whole 'hardcore' argument is just being used these days by developers as an excuse. After all, it's much easier than acknowledging your game didn't offer enough value for its price tag, that the marketing was poor, or that the game just wasn't good enough in general. I think Monster Hunter Tri sold nearly 2 million copies while that game is 10 times more hardcore than Red Steel 2 ever was, but it had a good marketing campaign and large amounts of content.

All these developers taking the 'Wii isn't hardcore enough' exit remind me of Titus Software claiming Superman 64 got such abysmal reviews because the game was directed at kids.

Red Steel 2 is a great game and probably my favorite third party wii game this year, this game flopped because it didn't recieve enough hype and most casual wii owners aren't interested in it. Honestly tho If you can get this game for 40$ I say its worth it

I bought it the first day it came out, and pretty much stopped playing it that same day. I was sorely dissappointed with the M+ motion controls. They did not meet my expectation for realistic sword play...not in the slightest. They can make all the excuses they want on why they did not have 1:1 sword play, i just dont believe them.

I have dabbled with the game since my intitial dissappointment. It is a solid game, fun to play and challenging despite the lack of realistic sword play. The voice acting is not very good, and the levels are kind of sparse with enemies...there just is not a whole lot going on all the time.

I bought it the first day it came out, and pretty much stopped playing it that same day. I was sorely dissappointed with the M+ motion controls. They did not meet my expectation for realistic sword play...not in the slightest. They can make all the excuses they want on why they did not have 1:1 sword play, i just dont believe them.

I have dabbled with the game since my intitial dissappointment. It is a solid game, fun to play and challenging despite the lack of realistic sword play. The voice acting is not very good, and the levels are kind of sparse with enemies...there just is not a whole lot going on all the time.

Videodogg

Good point. The game did feel empty and I also found the sword controls dissapointing.

after i beat the first stage and it said "point of no return"... thats when i realized it sucked.

I bought it the first day it came out, and pretty much stopped playing it that same day. I was sorely dissappointed with the M+ motion controls. They did not meet my expectation for realistic sword play...not in the slightest. They can make all the excuses they want on why they did not have 1:1 sword play, i just dont believe them.Videodogg

I bought it the first day it came out, and pretty much stopped playing it that same day. I was sorely dissappointed with the M+ motion controls. They did not meet my expectation for realistic sword play...not in the slightest. They can make all the excuses they want on why they did not have 1:1 sword play, i just dont believe them.

I have dabbled with the game since my intitial dissappointment. It is a solid game, fun to play and challenging despite the lack of realistic sword play. The voice acting is not very good, and the levels are kind of sparse with enemies...there just is not a whole lot going on all the time.

Videodogg

Well, I think that's pretty much 100% your fault. Next time don't demand the impossible. I don't see how else it could have played.

all us wii owner complain that we get cheap ports of hardcore games and we don't get enough serious games, but yet when we get a perfectely good game like Redsteel 2, nobody buys it. I loved Redsteel 2 and it was one of the funnest games I've played in a while, but we're not gonna get very many games if the audience doesn't buy it.FinalOneBaller