| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (65)

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 10:00AM HighFiveJesus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
lol console fanboys
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 1:16AM Puertoricarious said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
there was also the middling story, characters that i could care less about (except for torgal, purely out of badass-ness), and rote fetch quests, but i suppose you can't blame that on the engine either.

fortunately the game was challenging as hell, and surprisingly addictive if put your time in.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:00AM Milky1985 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whatever you say Dave!
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 2:08AM PersianSpice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So in other words, Squeenix got lazy? Hopefully their next go-around will be better.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 2:41AM RogueJedi86 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Funny, this is the only post I've seen on Joystiq where no one is getting downvoted for saying a PC version is superior to console versions. Usually the console fanboys get up in arms and mass downvote anything pro-PC.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:43AM RogueJedi86 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Like that very post evidently. Even commenting on the downvoting gets you downvoted.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 9:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's always funny when people try to call the game buggy because it was never buggy at all. And the framerate was just fine with the game installed unless you got hit by those few attacks that would hit everyone and splatter blood everywhere.

The pop-in was actually not as bad as Mass Effect's and neither were the load times and yet Last Remnant just gets shat upon like some sort of diseased bum. It was also a better game than Mass Effect.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 8:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess it's respectable that he doesn't blame the engine itself like Silicon Knights did with Too Human. Sure, there could be some problems with the engine software, but plenty of other developers manage to use Unreal and make good games.

I didn't know physics programmers were in such short supply. No wonder why half the games released have Unreal 3 on the box.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 8:54AM Daverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So the unreal engine was the cause of the texture pop ins and framerate drops (which you could fix immensely by loading the disk to xbox).

But what exactly is to blame for the terribly sad advancement system, almost no interaction in combat, and the fact you didnt so much control your group as give them vague ideas as to what to do and then go make a sandwich and see if anyone died.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 9:24AM Milky1985 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What sad advancement system? You got better at the things your characters did in battle which worked quite well. The only slightly annoying thing was not being ablet o outfit your generals yourself but they would generally tell you what they needed to get equipment upgrades so you just go and get the stuff.

You had quite a bit of intereaction in combat AS LONG as you set up your groups right. If you tried to make every group a jack of all trade the battle commands would get confused as all groups can do everything (as you can guess in battle situations). Have one caster group, one "take the pain" union and a healer union and the commands you want woudl be there. Also try selecting different unions in different locations on the battlefield, it changes the commands.

The vague ideas of what to do? Thats you not reading the manual or on screen instrucutions, there was a button you could press that would show you EXCATLY what each of the characters in the union would do if you selected that command, and the options woudl change depending on which union you targeted.

Yes the system was very different to normal games and some would like it and some not, but your points are mostly invalid.

IN my case i liked it because it was different to the norm, the battle system was fun and there was a LOT to do (i think i managed to sink about 80 hours in and still nto do everything, that boss as the end of the optionional dungeon was a git).
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 10:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Have this on the xbox and finished it and not once did I suffer this frame rate drop wich the game seems to be suffering on. I think I noticed fable's 2 zone rendering more than i did any slowdown in this game. Was it in battles? or towns or where?

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 9:28AM SnatchTease said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In no part is the Unreal engine to blame. When you lease a tool, it's best to know how to use it first. Also I thought that when leasing the Unreal engine, they offer techs to help. Then again, Square isn't known for accepting outside help from westerners. So many games use the same Unreal tech, and run flawlessly.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 1:44PM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There have been a lot of complaints from a lot of devs about Unreal. Epic is even getting sued over it, so it's not just Square having problems.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 12:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For the record, I have the pc version and they fix just about all the issues with the xbox version. The game runs for me at 60++ frames per second at 1920x1080. I run the game at the highest graphic options possible.

I love the game, but I admit I previously rented it on gamefly and didn't like it for the xbox. It wasn't till i played the demo on Steam that made me purchase it from there.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 3:20PM sapient2k7 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I rarely had any problems with the game installed on the HD on xbox. To date it is the game I spent most time on, on my xbox.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW