Hi folks.
Just decided to throw my two cents in here, because GameSpot's review of Red Steel confused me so much that I had to register and give my thoughts.
I'm a UK-based games journalist for a high-selling magazine, and played the finished version of Red Steel about a month ago for a lengthy period, for the purposes of reviewing it. During this review period I completed the game in its entirety.
I could find none of the "bugs" and "glitches" that the GameSpot reviewer decided warranted such an embarassingly low score for what I believe is actually a fantastic and immersive game. Any "bugs" and "glitches" given were things that have been seen in hundreds of other FPS games in the past, yet they didn't seem to get marked down for them.
It would appear that this review seems to focus more on what the game can't do rather than what it can do. The sword-fighting sections are poor because you can't pull out a gun, the sections with non-playable characters are poor because you can't shoot them in the back. These arguments are foolish in my opinion.
The whole point of Red Steel's swordfighting is that of honour. Pulling out a gun simply shouldn't happen because 1) that is not an honourable way to defeat an opponent in a swordfight, and 2) it would make the game far too easy. It's a bit silly to complain that it's poor because it's not like Raiders Of The Lost Ark. By that reasoning, Metal Gear Solid is a bad game because you can't pull out a pipe and stick it through your enemy like in Commando. Hey, there are pipes in some of the levels, why can't you? Lazy developing, of course!
The problem with Red Steel just now is that there aren't a lot of reviews floating about (though that will change in a few days). NGamer (a fellow UK magazine) gave it 90%, and I believe another site gave it somewhere in the region of 8 or 9 out of 10? (correct me if I'm wrong folks)
I can't tell you what score I've given the game since the magazine with my review in it is not due to hit the stores until next week and there are all sorts of embargoes and such, but if you wish I'll be happy to come back when the magazine's out and discuss my reasoning behind the score. Rest assured it fits more into the higher range of the scoring system however.
Yes, Red Steel has flaws, but they're the same flaws you've seen in nearly every game and certainly not exclusive to this title. Shooting down a game for having bad voice acting would mean you'd have to shoot down 90% of the games released in the last 10 years, because let's face it - voice acting in games is for the most part pretty abysmal.
Complaining that there are no co-op modes and that the multiplayer is pretty standard isn't really valid. Can you say GoldenEye? The fact is, I had a blast playing the multiplayer, and while the alternative mode (where you have to listen to your mission on the Remote) didn't really work too well in my opinion, straight deathmatches are great fun. At least it has multiplayer, unlike Call Of Duty 3.
My honest opinion, folks, is that Red Steel is a fantastic game. Maybe when you've finished it you won't come back to it too often because it's a bit linear and you do simply progress from one level to the next, but it's a fantastic experience while it lasts, and if you have enough buddies to play along with you, the deathmatches will have you loading it up time and time again. Giving it a score in line with Rampage: Total Destruction (a complete shambles of a game) is an insult in my opinion.
My worry is that GameSpot are not focusing on the key factor of Wii gaming - fun - and are trying too hard to compare it to the 360 and PS3, which Nintendo have stated in the past that they were never really trying to do. Accusing Red Steel of having "bland textures" is simply not true. Yes, compared to a 360 game running at 720p or a PS3 game running at 1080p it's no competition, but for sheer fun I'd rather play Red Steel than Resistance, because it just feels right. The fact is, people are comparing the Wii's graphics to the GameCube's, but I can assure you that Red Steel would not have been possible on a GameCube.
In my opinion, Red Steel is a great launch title for the Wii. Yes, it will eventually look dated compared to the likes of Metroid Prime 3 and any other first-person shooters, but doesn't Call Of Duty 2 on the 360 look dated now compared to Gears Of War? These things happen, and in time it'll look a bit poor, but for now it's a great launch title and an excellent way of showing new Wii gamers how versatile the Wii Remote and Nunchuk are. Highly recommended.
For the record, I'm not a Nintendo "fanboy" in any way, the concept of fanboyism is pathetic in my opinion. I've been gaming since the days of the NES and have owned every major console with the exception of Saturn (those were my poor days!). I have a 360 and plan to get a PS3 if Sony ever decide to pull their fingers our their asses and bring it to the UK. I spend all my time at the moment alternating between Zelda: Twilight Princess, Elite Beat Agents, Guitar Hero, Pro Evolution Soccer 6 and Gears Of War, so I'm as far from a fanboy as you'd like. I'm a gamer, nothing else, and I'd like to think I know a good game when I see one.
If anyone has any questions about Red Steel from the perspective of someone who's actually played it all the way through, feel free folks.
Incidentally, to any GameSpot chaps that read this - 8.8 for Zelda, guys? Come on.
