Sooo why do people hate this game again?

[Magnadeus]

I've been a big fan of the VP series for a long time time and when i played this for the first time i was a bit thrown off, but learn to adapt to change. And it's honestly not bad. I think many people hate this game because of the typical "it's not like the other games" shtick and think this game is the nail in the coffin for the VP series.

[lightstep]

i liked this game quite a bit. the gameplay was really fun. i think the flaws i have are things like.........the story stuff stuck in reading segments in menus rather than being built into the game, and the dlc content kinda lacking. Those things though seem like budget issues which at the end of the day is still on squeenix.

I really am not sure why the reception isnt good overall though, i think this is the most fun ive had with an action game in many many years, so seeing bad remarks about the gameplay makes me scratch my head.

[Alzuma]

It's not a bad game, but it's flaws outweights it's positives, so it's a 6/10 for me.

[gokublacksayadin]

walkiria esta dando erro ,após a atualização! o que posso fazer??

[Magnadeus]

Originally posted by j.g.:

i liked this game quite a bit. the gameplay was really fun. i think the flaws i have are things like.........the story stuff stuck in reading segments in menus rather than being built into the game, and the dlc content kinda lacking. Those things though seem like budget issues which at the end of the day is still on squeenix.

I really am not sure why the reception isnt good overall though, i think this is the most fun ive had with an action game in many many years, so seeing bad remarks about the gameplay makes me scratch my head.

Again some people are just too attached to the old games and don't know to adapt to change. Tri-ace are what made the games good and when you have another dev team make it, it's either make or break. In this case it broke for for a lot. Tri-ace are already struggling financially, so they couldn't touch the VP series anymore if they wanted to and people are gonna have to learn to accept that. And allow me to reiterate that just because a different dev team is working on a popular series, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead.

[William Shakesman]

It's a character action game with less story, more action from different devs so anyone who expected a long running series to have more story here is going to be disappointed.

[Feinne]

It's similar to Suikoden IV or Breath of Fire V. Fun games, but shouldn't have used a series name to try and sell itself. I'm guessing that's why people don't like it. Because it's not a "Valkyrie" game, just borrowing the name while being something different.

[Inquisitor Zalinto]

Hott take, I don't hate this game but if your game gets mixed or negative reviews from the start and stays that way, you need to cut that price at LEAST in half lol

[Sishiya]

Originally posted by Magnedeus:

Again some people are just too attached to the old games and don't know to adapt to change. Tri-ace are what made the games good and when you have another dev team make it, it's either make or break. In this case it broke for for a lot. Tri-ace are already struggling financially, so they couldn't touch the VP series anymore if they wanted to and people are gonna have to learn to accept that. And allow me to reiterate that just because a different dev team is working on a popular series, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead.

As someone who bought, played, enjoyed a tremendous amount, and still has the PS1 disc for Valkyrie Profile, I'd like to add my input to this discussion.

You are correct in saying that some, such as myself, are too still attached to the old games because, we loved them and wanted more of it, including the gameplay, stories (including those of the einherjar), and Norse mythos. We knew what we liked, and wanting more of the same isn't an unreasonable ask.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold: first, gamers today, in particular younger ones, simply have too many demands on their attention, and that's not even counting social, academic, familial, and/or work obligations. There are so many great games out there today, in fact, too many for anyone to reasonably expect to play in their lifetime.

I personally have thousands of games, over multiple platforms, and no matter how many times I say to myself "Good lord man, this has gotten beyond ridiculous, why are you even considering buying another game when you have so many that remain untouched?" it usually doesn't stick. It's basically hoarding at this point, with what little defense I can muster is that when I buy a game, I do so because I suspect that I will enjoy it and I do want to play it. Sometimes that works out and I get to fully realize the enjoyment of my "investment", sometimes I only play a title for a handful of hours before deciding, "meh", sometimes I just don't get around to playing it at all.

I also realize that I'm probably an outlier in this discussion, and I consider myself beyond blessed to be able to afford indulging in this hobby. The point I want to make though is that I know how oversaturated the gaming market is. While I think that's a good thing for the gamers in terms of having so many good options, it does lead into the second problem: game publishers and developers.

Developers need money to make games. Publishers have the money and are willing to invest in developers...but they also want to see a profitable return. Many real-life cases are out there of games that died in the proposal phase because no publisher saw it as being worth the risk of not making a profit. Even if a game breaks even or makes a small profit, the venture is deemed a failure; nothing less than significant profit will suffice to be deemed successful. Not an unreasonable ask, but also one that only supports making games instead of developing gaming in the strictest sense of the words.

Don't even get me started on crowdfunding solutions for games. I will limit myself to observe that crowdfunding, due to it reflecting the crowd part, highlights some of the best and worst of humanity when gamers get involved in funding the development of games.

So what happens? Publishers look at what titles are successful and try to identify various traits that engendered that success and attempt to splice them into new proposals from developers, who generally are not looking at the profitability but at their vision for the game. Savvy developers might anticipate this and make some trait splices part of their proposal in order to increase the odds of securing funding, even if those traits don't exactly help develop the game in any meaningful way. This is how traits such as DLCs and Microtransactions came to not only exist, but flourish. That said, some traits, such as graphic fidelity, multiple control schemes, interaction with multiple platforms are simply signs of the advancement of technology and societal shifts.

The bottom line for gamers is ultimately homogenization: a sea of games that, for the most part, are pretty much the same as any other. I don't think any gamer wants that to happen.

So, yes, there are people that might be called "stuck on the past" in terms of what a specific franchise or IP used to be; we knew that we liked what we bought into and wanted more of that, not new traits being added that fundamentally changes what we liked.

If I want to play something that feels like Devil May Cry/Darksiders/etc, then I'd buy and, more importantly, play those games. I'm willing to buy a new VP title because I'm wanting it to be more of what VP was. Sure, make 4k resolution for it, make it support XBox/Dualshock/Joypads, include social media streaming integration, but don't make another soulless stage-based boss rush game whose only connection with the franchise is the names of various characters; there are other IPs which do that, and arguably do it better.

No other IP out there does exactly what Valkyrie Profile did; that made it a popular hit in the first place.

[Hedonist]

I'm enjoying the game but not as much as the first one. The battle is a bit messy and the design is a bit weird.

If they made Valkyrie Elysium like Tales of Arise then it would be better. It has better game play and fluidity of battle, but I'll try to finish this game first.

[Sgt. Magnusson]

People don't hate this game. This game is so mediocre that most people don't even know it even exists.

[优月]

UE4 fatal error, game crashed

[1% Aoukar]

optimization sucks constant random stuters for rl reason like just moving camera around . game is great combat wise, completed it on valkyrie mode first run so got my fill, story is meh and even though its a japanese game the support characters are kinda bland (jp games tend to have characters with rly strogn "troupe" personalities, side stories might as well not exist.
what rly peevs me are the character models they look like dolls n kinda creep me out, dunno why they went with this art style

wouldve been great if this was successful enough to build its own rep as theres definitely a market for games like this with good combat.

happy to take any recrommendations for similar games
recently also relly enjoyed avatar the legend of korra game

[1% Aoukar]

the game definitely needs a 2 with the way it ended, so many unanswered questions. even with the plot twist simply due to the bad story telling there was no chance to get emotional y.y

the final chapter wwas hard enough to make me sweat lol, gave up exploring the map just cus of the amount of enemies constantly coming at u

[Hedonist]

After 11 hrs I can't play it anymore so dull and boring. I purchased Tales of Arise ultimate edition and having more fun than this.

[Compy439]

Beat two of the three endings still have yet to muster the courage to hunt down those flowers for the true ending. I did have fun though but so much other stuff has come out since then.