PDA

View Full Version : Soul Reaver (Taken from the Other Forum)



Umah Bloodomen
28th Jun 2002, 18:47
This was originally posted by PlayaPhilosophy in the other Eidos Forum...I thought I would bring it over here to strike up interesting discussion/debate and get this ball rolling.

Originally Posted by PlayPhilosophy

I don't know about all the fans here, but Soul Reaver 2 is another Eidos and Crystal Dynamic disappointment. Although, I thought the graphic were better but it lacks hours and hours of game play. What happened to the Soul Reaver? It didn't look as great as the old one and why can't Raziel charged up his Soul Reaver like the old times when he kills vampires. I wonder...did it take 2 years to release Soul Reaver2 because the directors, writers, and producers had to change to story? Soul Reaver two didn't look anything like the preview in SR1. I get interested in SR2 when I saw the preview to the SR2 in SR1 near the end when Raziel is in the search for Kain. There should be a Soul Reaver 3! And it should have more demonic and evil warlords come after Raziel and Kain as they fight to regain the Balance of the Pillars. And Kain, should die in the process!!!

blincoln
28th Jun 2002, 18:53
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. I really liked SR2, and I'm looking forward to the third game.

Umah Bloodomen
28th Jun 2002, 19:00
I am also looking forward to the third installment of Soul Reaver (and of course Blood Omen). I don't really think that SR2 is a big disappointment, if anything it makes me look back over SR1 and realize that it wasn't as pivotal to the series. (With the exception of Raz's execution and learning of new gifts).
I think SR2 better developed the storyline. Before I used to play the series just for the game, but since coming to the forums, I have begun to delve deeper into the "bigger picture" and explored the many possibilities of the plot development. I agree that the gameplay wasn't as long and/or indepth as past games in the series, but I really do believe that the plotline more than made up for that. I would be completely happy with SR3 being about the same length (perhaps just a tad bit longer) than SR2 as long as the plot development stayed as deep as it has been.

blincoln
28th Jun 2002, 19:04
I totally agree, Umah.
Really, games are now a tradeoff between length and quality. SR2 was high quality and relatively short length - but no shorter than Metal Gear Solid, which people don't seem to have issues about. Games can only have both if they take forever to develop, and I'd rather have SR2-length games every couple of years than wait four in-between installments.

KainSyndrome101
28th Jun 2002, 23:29
I thought Soul Reaver 2 was a great game, and I was deeply satisfied. But my favorite would have to be Blood Omen 2, because they balanced everything within the game. It was long, had a good amount of story, lots of gameplay and excellent voice acting and graphics.

I hope Soul Reaver 3 is more like Blood Omen 2. Not in gameplay, but the way the game is structured.

Iron Head
30th Jun 2002, 06:45
Originally posted by blincoln

SR2 was high quality and relatively short length - but no shorter than Metal Gear Solid, which people don't seem to have issues about.

Actually, SR2 is about a third shorter than Metal Gear Solid (trust me, I've played through MG4 eighteen times), and it was actually a major beef i had with MG4.
But anyways, PlayPhilosophy doesn't seem to know very much about the seires, especially when he mentioned the "sr2 preview in sr1", (which most of us know was not a sr2 preview, but in fact just deleted cut-scenes from sr1).

blincoln
30th Jun 2002, 07:36
It took me 12-14 hours to play through SR2, and it took me 12-13 hours to play through MGS, so that makes them the same length, at least for me =).

Iron Head
30th Jun 2002, 16:47
Yeah... took me 10 hours to beat MG4 the first time, and took me 11 hours to beat sr2 :D
But I was actually talking about the size of the game itself, not how long it took to beat it.

KainSyndrome101
1st Jul 2002, 02:17
It took me about 13 hours to beat MGS2. Know why? Because of all those frickin' cutscenes that seemed to go on for eternity. Look, I like story, but for chrissake, it had more dialogue than 3 movies put together! Some bad and weird voice acting didn't help at all. Thank God Legacy of Kain has the best voice acting ever in a game. It's true.

Soul Reaver 2 had MUCH more gameplay than MGS2. To me, MGS2 was not fun at all. Metal Gear Solid was much better in story and gameplay, which it had more quality in. Which is why I loved Blood Omen 2 so much. It didn't have as many cutscenes as Soul Reaver 2, but it made them more valuable.

willow
1st Jul 2002, 04:32
Originally posted by KainSyndrome101
Soul Reaver 2 had MUCH more gameplay than MGS2.

I really don't understand your logic on that one.... I mean sure I love SR2 to death... but on a pure gameplay level... MGS2 did have more gameplay. SR2 was linear and didn't really offer the player any room to explore, and no real incentive to play through again (well... despite that... I've played through the game around 6 times... ahem). Also given the options that Solid Snake has at his arsenal in comparison to Raziel is quite a difference. Sure if you ask me which one I like better I'll say Soul Reaver any day... I just prefer the story and the genre... but on the gameplay level MGS2 has quite the advantage.

And now for everything else...

I believe SR2 to be a pivotal story in the series... typically the apex of a story will take place in the second act. Although it was a little more linear then previous installments I believe it far more important and I see the reason to... but on another note... I typically play RPG's... why you ask? It’s because I enjoy a good story. That is why I read books... that is why I'm a film buff... and that is why I thoroughly love the LoK continuity. You would be hard pressed to find another series of games out there that has such a rich story and cast of characters. And *gasp* I'm going to use God on this but like he/she said. It's the atmosphere of the entire world of Nosgoth. It has such a rich history. No other game has ever accomplished this on LoK's level.
So in turn SR2 is basically the perfect game for me... it was very story driven and I really appreciated that. Sure I'm still a gamer and would like to see lots of gameplay... but it's not like it bothered me or I even thought of it while playing thorough it.... I was far too enthralled within the story to realize anything else.
I anxiously await further installments for all games bearing the LoK name.

KainSyndrome101
1st Jul 2002, 14:11
No, what I mean is that Soul Reaver 2 had you controlling the character more of the time. I liked MGS2, I even bought it, and I do like the actual gameplay in that game a lot. You could do more in MGS2, but the amount of time you spent doing it was probably half the time spent going through those cutscenes(which were excellent, by the way)and codec screens.

I have nothing against MGS2, I just like a little more gameplay time than that.

chuffy
1st Jul 2002, 15:00
i didn't like the ending in SR1 it ended with you felling annoyed and frustrated. but the ending in SR2 was more complete and satisfying. it gave a feeling of completion
chuffy

Power reaver
1st Jul 2002, 15:59
Actually , the SR ending made me feel more excited for SR2 . Hehe

SR2 was a very good game , but if they added the pillar glyphs , threw in a few more abilities and give a little more to explore it would have become the best game ever .

The best thing I liked about LOK were the demons , sarafan Lords and fighting with the mighty blood reaver .

KainSyndrome101
1st Jul 2002, 16:37
Man, I just looked over PlayPhilosophy's quote(which I hadn't read before), and I tell ya, he seems like a complete newbie to the LoK series. I mean like, just read it, it sounds so stupid. And what previews? The portals glimpsing into time at the end? Yeah, those were deleted, but how could he think of them as previews?

I'm sorry, but this guy sounds like a complete idiot. I'm not bashing him because he bashed SR2, but just for the fact that he can't appreciate what the game truly offers.

Time Streamer
1st Jul 2002, 16:54
As far as graphics in SR2 go, it was excellent compared to SR1 (different platform I know). SR1 on the other hand had more gameplay so to speak. There was more places to explore in SR1 and the plot was more darker. I hope they combine the best of both worlds for SR3.

chuffy
3rd Jul 2002, 09:24
that would be a great mix SR2's graphics, the backgroungs and sceney, not forgetting the fact that when the characters speak they really look like they are saying the words. Combined with SR1's extras, the glyphs, health and magic enhancements.

i just reread PlayPhilosophy's review. i didn't realise that he was talking about the future visions that raziel sees in the mobius's lair how can they be used as references to the future games. Or even to whats gonna happen in the future games, i mean how can they be used as definite view fo the events that are ment happen when kain and raziel have already changed the future?

chuffy

keepittrue
4th Jul 2002, 03:06
Actually I thought SR2 was an average game. SR1 and BO1 were superb. I dont really want to take picks at what I didnt like about SR2 but lets just say I didnt learn too too much considering I played BO1 and SR1 before SR2 and the gameplay was a little repetitive. Also on the MGS note, I agree with Willow.