How is it that game reveiwers give Suikoden bad reveiws

[Noraibah]

I understand why they gave Suikoden IV bad scores......Suikoden Tactics only got bad scores because it is sometimes too hard without new game plus.

[Blutiger Engel]

It's easy enough if you load you data from IV and have Lazlo. It mainly requires the right rune set-up, which might take a bit to learn who needs what. My second playthrough (not a new game plus, but just a normal mode) was much easier simply because I knew what I was doing that time around, and I got mostly S and A ranks, so it is very possible without the new game+ equipment and S ranked skills in the beginning. It just has a bit of a learning curve.

[Noraibah]

I can't believe you have Lazlo!I don't really like Suikoden IV since it is quite execessive at times......

[Lemmy Claypool]

I can't believe you have Lazlo!I don't really like Suikoden IV since it is quite execessive at times......

Why is it hard to believe people get Lazlo in Tactics? I dare say most people that play the game do.

[Blutiger Engel]

Agreed. If I didn't get Lazlo and Snowe I wouldn't have enjoyed the game nearly as much. I may not have even finished it.

[Sagiri]

Wouldn't a bad review just mean they aren't very good at these games?

Do you really believe that? And what, exactly, is there to be 'good at' in Suikoden? They're notoriously easy games.

Anyway, I believe most of the Suikoden reviews I've seen are in the area of 7.5/10. That's not bad, and certainly understandable, considering the series' ongoing design flaws.

Uh, yes, I do believe that. I really sucked at first. Provided, I was in the third grade, but still, they just don't give it much of a chance.

[Themadcow]

It's a strange one. I use Metacritic (www.metacritic.com) for my review requirements as it usually has a nice balance of media and user reviews.

It lists the following:

(No Suikoden I reviews)
Suikoden II - 82% (from 8 critic reviews) - 10.0/10.0 from 25 user reviews

Suikoden III - 86% (23 critic reviews) - 9.1/10.0 from 29 user reviews

Suikoden IV - 63% (44 critic reviews) - 8.6/10.0 from 13 user reviews

Suikoden V - 76% (43 critic reviews) - 9.5/10.0 from 27 user reviews

Tactics - 68% (31 critic reviews) - 9.5/10.0 from 2 user reviews

Tierkreis - 76% (24 critic reviews) - 8.0/10.0 from 12 user reviews

The most amazing differences here are with S2 and 5. S2 has never recieved less than a perfect 10/10 from users so how the hell did it recieve 82% from reviewers?

The issue is that the critical media attempts to use a consistent system for all games reviews that ignores the fundamental issue that RPG's are an entirely different breed of animal. Critics have to be objective and, in that sense the following can be rationalized:

Is S2 too easy? Arguably yes. From a basic progression/combat point of view. Would they have taken into account the challenge of getting all 108 stars? Nope.

Did S2 have great graphics? Well, not in the eyes of someone who had seen great advances in 3D over the previous 5 years. The fact that the hero/jowy unite attack looks amazing on my HD screen today, whereas FFVII looks crap wouldn't have come into it.

Did S2 have great sound? Not really. Not unless you played it enough to appreciate its simple beauty (or the majestic final battle with Neclord). You would probably see it as average.

Add to that the fairly simplistic tactical battles and number of random encounters (frustrating for a reviewer I'd imagine)... and you have a recipe for average review stew.

On the other hand, play it all the way through. Play it to enjoy the storyline and characters. Play it to explore the myriad of different party combinations. Play it to get all 108 stars, get your best friend back and save your "Big Sister" and THEN you have a recipe for 10/10.

Fact is that objectively, everyone could sit back and criticise the best games in the series (S2, S5, S1 imo) but subjectively... they're some of the best games ever created. To put that into perspective, no other game on Metacritic that I've seen has a perfect user review average. Including:

FFVII (9.1/10 users)
Half Life 2 (9.3)
GTA 3 (8.7)
etc etc

[Eve]

I'm sure someone's already said it, however I think a lot of people see the recruitment of Suikoden as "too much".

As far as IV and Tactics. IV was okay, but navigation sucked. One of the gaming magazines hit it on the head, steering that damn ship was like a soggy sweater. I think I named my ship the SoggySweatr or something similar. My favourite part of 4 honestly was Snowe in his BSDM gear (his pirate portrait)

Tactics I didn't really enjoy. I don't really know why, and have considered replaying it but I just generally found it un-fun.

[Blutiger Engel]

My favourite part of 4 honestly was Snowe in his BSDM gear (his pirate portrait)

Once again, I like you. I think we're going to get along great.

I found it strange that V only got 76% yet a 9.5 from users (so better than III with the users but 10% less from critics). I know V has it's obvious flaws with slow loading times and so-so voice acting (as well as a slow start) but aside from that it's a great game. I figured it was more well-received with the critics.

[Themadcow]

By my estimation, the game doesn't really get going until Stormfist - which is, what, about 6-7hrs in? I guess thats the main reason right there.

I think 9.5 from users is a little high though. V is a brilliant story with a game attached, rather than I and II which are nicely balanced between story and game. The difficulty factor (aside from getting the stars within some tight timescales) is waaaay too low though. Who actually 'wipes' during a playthrough of V?

[Blutiger Engel]

By my estimation, the game doesn't really get going until Stormfist - which is, what, about 6-7hrs in? I guess thats the main reason right there.

I think it only took me about 2 hours, but then again it's a new game plus, so I'm not running around getting lost like I was my first time. Some of those cities and buildings are unnecessarily large.

I don't recall wiping, but I do think the strategy battles are a nice touch. I've never played a real-time strategy before that game, so that was something to shake up the difficulty a bit for first timers. I still beat them easily once I got used to it, though, so I guess I'm not helping my argument!

[thcrock]

I haven't read specific Suikoden II reviews, but back then the media was all about 3D. Simply having 2D graphics probably hurt Suikoden II. Sprite-based graphics have aged well compared to early 3D efforts (if you put in Suikoden II and FFVII's gameplay graphics today and look at them side by side, I think a lot of people would say SII looks nicer), but reviewers then didn't have the advantage of seeing that.

I can see how Suikoden V was rated lower than II and III. It had many things going for it, but the pacing towards the beginning hurt it's chances with critics, and for good reason. Pacing is incredibly important for a story-based game, and if you bore people at the beginning, you have no chance of impressing them, even if it's top-notch starting at 1/3 of the way through the game.

In my opinion, II and III both deserve scores of 9+, on par or higher with the Final Fantasies. The Metacritic scores for the other games seem fair to me.

[Antimatzist]

Some of those cities and buildings are unnecessarily large.

I remember being lost in Sol-Falena right at the beginning of the game...

And yes, I'd say Suikoden II aged a lot better than FFF VII oder even FF VIII (it doesn't look nice imo, except for the cut scenes), but on the PS 2 it's a whole different thing. So I can udnerstand why the PS 2 Suikoden's don't get top scores in the graphics section...

[Black Knight Yuber]

I can see tactics and its low score simply because of the lack of stradegy some use. It's not run up hack & slash you have to think if I put this guy here will he be able to stand an attack from an opponent or opponents over here. Then again some don't go for the stradegy RPG feel (Fire Emblem in particular.) If you're not use to the concept of movement range, attack range, etc, then you'll be lost from the get go. Saying I don't understand this concept it sucks! is what I got from a friend who liked Suikoden, but hated Tactics to an extreme.

Suikoden IV don't know what to say other then was it because Suikoden 1, 2, 3 stayed close together and this one jumped years back? Maybe the dull look for almost most the characters, or being thrown right into a war battle and not getting what does what.

Suikoden III man gripe was the trinity sytem and not understanding each ones perspective.

Suikoden II had the unlucky draw of going up against one of the most popular titles Final Fantasy VII. Which don't help, but some played that and figured when playing Suikoden II Where's a guy with a buster sword? How do I use a pheonix down? Is there a girl with big jugs? Not to mention what Kornholio said about 2D vs 3D graphic wise.

As for Suikoden V clearly obvious the big city and being lost from the bell. That's a killer there roaming around a big place not having a clue where you are at. Once you get by the start it flows nicely, but I guess some don't have patience enough and would just quit.

[patapi]

I have no doubt that objective reviews should rate III higher or at least equal to II simply because of what it brings to the series. Especially if they are free from the subjective expectations that came from pure nostalgia.