106,817
edits
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
''Electronic Gaming Monthly'' would review the game in May 2005, scoring it at straight 6.5s across the board. One reviewer called it a "bad cover version" of [[Suikoden II]] but the game was generally praised as compelling, if long-winded, and certainly as an improvement over its predecessor. However, the game was also called archaic, lacking in graphical fidelity, and slow to get going. | ''Electronic Gaming Monthly'' would review the game in May 2005, scoring it at straight 6.5s across the board. One reviewer called it a "bad cover version" of [[Suikoden II]] but the game was generally praised as compelling, if long-winded, and certainly as an improvement over its predecessor. However, the game was also called archaic, lacking in graphical fidelity, and slow to get going. | ||
''Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine'', meanwhile, would give the game 3/5. OPM would criticize the game for aping its predecessors to the point of making the player wonder if they were playing a remake, rather than a sequel (or prequel). Once again, the story was | ''Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine'', meanwhile, would give the game 3/5. OPM would criticize the game for aping its predecessors to the point of making the player wonder if they were playing a remake, rather than a sequel (or prequel). Once again, the story was described as compelling and the game solid, but lacking in style and further evidence that the series needed a shot in the arm. | ||
''Official UK PlayStation Magazine'' in November 2006 would be even more curt, scoring the game at 5/10 in a short review that dismissed the game as too tedious and filled with "crushingly dull text". | ''Official UK PlayStation Magazine'' in November 2006 would be even more curt, scoring the game at 5/10 in a short review that dismissed the game as too tedious and filled with "crushingly dull text". |