Valkyria Revolution (Xbox One) Review | The Outerhaven

The Valkyria series hasn’t seen a proper release in the West or in Oceania since last official title, Valkyria Chronicles 2, came in 2010 on the PlayStation Portable. Poor sales of that title led to the third title not being released outside of Japan.

[LordJamar]

those things are massive

[Null1980]

Overcompensation for everything else this game is lacking?

Internal development team meeting: "Oh sh**, we really screwed up this series. How do we salvage this? What do we do?" "Just give the chick bigger t**s, that'll sell us a few extra copies." ;P

[Servbot41]

The game is garbage for sure, but most Valkyria's have been pretty well-endowed.

[Nodoze]

Why the hell did they change this so significantly?? The first one was amazing. This looks like crap.

[TheColbertinator]

Valkyria and Mass effect were supposed to be my 2017 champions. Dreadful.

[Gority]

This game is not a good game, but this review is so poorly done. I also don't know how you can condemn the story so much if you're skipping major parts. I get that the VO isn't great and the writing is sometimes corny, but that's presentation criticisms, not story. I also get the sense from the review that the reviewer did not complete the game.

[admiralvic]

"but this review is so poorly done."

I agree, but some people enjoy reviews written from exaggerated perspectives or read more like a consumer review. That being said, you can read this and come away understanding very little about the game.

"I also don't know how you can condemn the story so much if you're skipping major parts."

It undercuts their creditability, but it also says a lot about how bad the story is.

"I get that the VO isn't great and the writing is sometimes corny, but that's presentation criticisms, not story."

Their main complaint is actually pacing, which is very much so a story criticism. Even though it would be very robotic, it's underwhelming how you start by defeating a general and then you need to beat like seven of the 11 or something chapters to beat the second and from there every chapter has someone get defeated. I would also overlook this, except the story itself doesn't do a good job of making you care about the protagonists, the war or anything really. It feels padded and the fact you can skip large segments and still understand it all says a lot.

"I also get the sense from the review that the reviewer did not complete the game."

Does it really matter? Obviously they should, but the gameplay doesn't change and the story only gets worse.

[Gority]

I don't disagree with any of your points about the quality of the game or story. Side note, I like the concept of the story. I think it's very unique, but very poorly executed.

However, I don't think just because the game is bad means the review should be. I'm actually completely fine with the score, my problem is the content.

Basically it reads like this:
Game is different from predecessors
Story Sucks
Gameplay sucks
The end

Tell me more what sucks about the gameplay, tell me more about the issues with the story. Frankly, if I'm reviewing it, and comparing it to the predecessors like the reviewer, I'm commenting on how they changed the lore with how Valkyria so badly. I'm talking about how suddenly in this prequel ragnite is used for magic.

As far as gameplay goes, they've got some interesting systems done poorly as well. I'm talking about how the enemies are crazy tanky for no reason and how the the level requirement randomly spikes at the end of the game but is super low at the beginning of the game.

Overall, if I'm someone who is a fan of the series, but hasn't purchased or played this because I'm trying to read reviews to see if it's worth it, I don't think this review tells me enough. I don't think the review meets the responsibility sites have to their readers.

[Lionalliance]

Still baffles me as the sudden change of gameplay and all, what were they thinking?