Top
20°
5.0

RPGamer: White Knight Chronicles: International Edition Review

These days, some heavy hitting Japanese companies are doing all they can to cut down on localization time on RPGs for North America. So when a game like White Knight Chronicles: International Edition takes well over a year to cross the sea, one would hope for lots of improvements over the original release. Sadly, the few changes made were merely to supplementary parts of the game. While White Knight Chronicles is full of potential and very solid in a couple areas, it still falls short.

The story is too old to be commented.
Sonyslave32869d ago

FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP

Chris3992869d ago (Edited 2869d ago )

Namely "some" (edited for Penny! :P) JRPG lovers. But my logic keeps hitting a wall when I compare this game to information or reviews on it's peers on the SAME sites mind you.

Let's look at recent exclusives. Magna Carta 2 and WKC. Both have semi-mmoesque designs. Both are pretty cliche. I'd weigh more in favor of MC: 2 having the weaker plot as it's the classic: "young man with amnesia, who will eventually save the world" story. RPGgamer gives this element of the game a "5". WKC on the other hand, receives a "2" in this category. They both got a "4" for visuals, but if anyone has played both games, they would know that MC2 is one of the worst examples of a poorly made Ureal Engine 3 game. There are instances where textures take up to one minute to appear on trees, rocks, whatever - sometimes they fail to load entirely. Furthermore, screen tearing and pop in is rampant.

My problem with reviews is that there is no consistency. And whatever standards a reviewer or site has set with their previous publishings are thrown out the window on a whim.

I'm enjoying both games (MC2/ WKC), I love JRPGs. I simply can't understand why one is being so universally slammed in reviews, while the other, which innovates less (no online, no customization, very linear) and suffers from all the same trappings and failures of WKC is not. It is equally perplexing, how the PS3 version of Star Ocean 4 is receiving worse scores when it is the same game as it's 360 counterpart with enhanced graphics (they got rid of the black border and added AA), added content and a lower sticker price to boot.

That's my 2 cents. And I realize that there are plenty of people who loathe this game (or are Hellbent on hating it regardless), that's fine. What I'm curious about is the discrepancy in reviews on games of the same genre.

Edit: I'm not defending this game, nor do I need to "chill out" as I'm not really excited. I'm merely provoking a discussion on the review system for JRPGs. It's fine if people don't like WKC, we are all entitled to our opinions. I'm simply questioning why two games which are relatively similar are given WILDLY different scores by the same outlets. The issue is not whether most people think it's a bad game - they clearly do :)

@ Kigmal. I've hardly commented on EVERY WKC review released. A few, yes. Nor am I denying anything. I've admitted - many times, in this post - that the preponderance of video-gamers think it's a bad game. Let's take the drama down a notch.

Pennywise2869d ago

I guess the minority you speak of do not happen to be ANY of the game reviewers.

Man... I wanted this game bad. I held off on the first couple reviews... But I can sit here all day and tell you how "good" my afternoon crap was... at the end of the story, it still stinks.

Bnet3432869d ago

I don't know why you feel like you have to defend this game to the end of the world. Dude, just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to. You're trying to deny ever bad review that comes in for this game. I thought Blue Dragon was an awesome game, and no one gave it good reviews. I really enjoyed it's old school feel and diverse graphics. Just let it go bro. Chill out. :/