Soul Reaver 2 kinda sucks?

[LoSTsOuL]

I got this game on GOG so yes ive played the remasters lol. Soul reaver 2 clearly got the least amount of work. Opening FMV isnt nearly as HQ as 1 and most textures are hardly touched. I mean i agree with the dev that it was already pretty high quality compared to 1 but 2 still feels rushed the Health Spiral isnt even properly scaled and is just stretched. As someone who didnt get to play 2 originally at release and couldnt finish the pc port due to bugs. this feels like a downgrade from the first game. No collectibles or reason to explore just narrative and no boss battles either aside from that last part of the game which is a joke. None of the battles in SR are necessarily great but... man 2 just sucks. Am I alone here or do others think the first game was better? Defiance is good and brings back collectibles and reason to explore but its stage based gameplay was a bit of a downer.

[Archon Vulcan]

No, Soul Reaver 2 is a straight upgrade in almost every way. Combat, enemy variety, better enemy placement, better puzzles, better story, and more interesting characters.

The only thing I liked in the first game over the second is that it had boss battles, and they weren't exactly great.

Defiance, game-play wise, is better than any of the Soul Reaver games but the story and visual style is much weaker.

Soul Reaver 2 didn't receive as much love in this remaster as the first game, which is a shame.

[LoSTsOuL]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

No, Soul Reaver 2 is a straight upgrade in almost every way. Combat, enemy variety, better enemy placement, better puzzles, better story, and more interesting characters.

For me 2 feels too linear. combat is really poor and not nearly as colorful as 1 and the world feels empty and devoid of any secrets. its a downgrade in atmosphere and exploration as-well as game-play. you had reasons to explore in 1 you had glyphs, eldritch power-ups, health power-ups, and secret locations. while i think these locations were pointless in the endgame it was still something to do. combat is downgraded. sure its got blocking but you are stuck with 3 combat types bare, light, and heavy and it all feels the same in comparison to the first were you could impale and throw enemies to their doom. while you have some of that here its far less exciting. Story is all this game has going for it in my opinion otherwise its a point A to B game. Puzzles in 2 feel pretty simple but since im older now i cant say either game gave me much trouble lol.
dont take it as me hating Soul Reaver 2. on the contrary I love the game, but im enjoying it allot less than the first since it feels like this game was far less ambitious. If the world had more to do other than get to the next puzzle id say its an upgrade in the parts that mattered but im only as interested in the story as i am invested in its world.

[GamerXT]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

No, Soul Reaver 2 is a straight upgrade in almost every way. Combat, enemy variety, better enemy placement, better puzzles, better story, and more interesting characters.

The combat seems more like a downgrade compared to SR1 ( unless they upgraded it for this remaster ). The enemies have the habit of always snapping to the player, making side stepping basically useless in the later sections. Reminds me of Prince of Persia SoT in that regard.

It's also more linear, although that's more of a preference I guess.

[Archon Vulcan]

Soul Reaver 2 is definitely more linear but that works for the type of game it is. Linearity is not a problem in a game where the story is the most valuable asset. Would it be nice if there was some meaningful exploration? Sure, but it's not necessary.

As for the combat, you now have a heavy attack, the ability to block, and crouch dodge. So you have more options when engaging the enemy. The enemy types are more varied and they take more than 1-3 hits.

I've completed Soul Reaver 2 countless times but only completed Soul Reaver 1 once, a few days ago, with the help of a guide. There were many times where I just wanted to quit playing because of awful level design. The story is what kept me going.

Originally posted by GamerXT:

The enemies have the habit of always snapping to the player, making side stepping basically useless in the later sections.

It's been a while (2 years) since I've completed this game, so I don't remember every fight but I don't remember having any problems with dodging. I started my play-through of SR2 Remaster recently. I'll see how things are later on but so far it's as I remember.

[Chaoslord 87]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

Originally posted by GamerXT:

The enemies have the habit of always snapping to the player, making side stepping basically useless in the later sections.

It's been a while (2 years) since I've completed this game, so I don't remember every fight but I don't remember having any problems with dodging. I started my play-through of SR2 Remaster recently. I'll see how things are later on but so far it's as I remember.

The Sarafan Knights have a nasty habit of hitting you even if you dodge.
Almost aimbot like.

[LoSTsOuL]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

I've completed Soul Reaver 2 countless times but only completed Soul Reaver 1 once, a few days ago, with the help of a guide. There were many times where I just wanted to quit playing because of awful level design. The story is what kept me going.

Different Strokes for different folks I guess. SR1 being a bit aimless and letting you figure things out on your own was part of the charm allot like Elden Ring, Zelda, & Metroid. I just dont find walking from point A to B in a linear fashion very interesting

[LoSTsOuL]

Originally posted by GamerXT:

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

No, Soul Reaver 2 is a straight upgrade in almost every way. Combat, enemy variety, better enemy placement, better puzzles, better story, and more interesting characters.

The combat seems more like a downgrade compared to SR1 ( unless they upgraded it for this remaster ). The enemies have the habit of always snapping to the player, making side stepping basically useless in the later sections. Reminds me of Prince of Persia SoT in that regard.

It's also more linear, although that's more of a preference I guess.

Combat is meh and yea dodging doesn't do much and THAT'S IF the Dodge actually registers when you press it or if you actually dodge the way you want. I personally miss the fire reaver in 1 and just lighting em up without having to deal with the clumsy combat

[GamerXT]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

As for the combat, you now have a heavy attack, the ability to block, and crouch dodge.

None of that seemed to matter when I played. The enemies where more like a wall to everything.

Like I say though, was mainly the later sections which where tedious.

[Sïckosis]

I definitely prefer 1 over 2. Yeah the story is more complete in 2. But most of the features of 2 just don't work. Heavy attacks never land. Blocking is useless. In fact sadly the most effective thing is to just run around enemies while button mashing because it breaks the terrible AI and you constantly hit them. The novelty of fighting with vampire rules in 1 was more fun than the combat of 2 even if that was 1's weakest part. I literally ran past almost every enemy in 2 and was happier for it. And exploring in a Metroidvania style was better than the complete linearity of 2. And then the reaver sound effects in 2 were also very grating.

And the opening of 2... if I didn't have the door to the left in the citadel seared into my brain I would have gotten lost again before ever finding the first save zone and have to restart all over just like I did when I rented it from Blockbuster and again when I bought the PC version years later, and that was when you couldn't skip cutscenes unlike this version. SR2 just has SO MANY bad design choices even if the story is one of my favorites of all time.

[Archon Vulcan]

Originally posted by Spychosis:

And the opening of 2... if I didn't have the door to the left in the citadel seared into my brain I would have gotten lost again before ever finding the first save zone

What is an exception in SR2, is the rule in SR1. Just about every new area you have to go to progress the game requires that you memorise one of the many paths that were inaccessible to you when you first saw them. That's why it was necessary to have the Elder God tell you the zone you had to go to.

About the heavy attacks, mine land almost consistently (around 80% of time). Block is very useful when you're cornered and in fact it's useful in general as it heavily reduces the damage you take.

Originally posted by Chaoslord 87:

The Sarafan Knights have a nasty habit of hitting you even if you dodge.
Almost aimbot like.

You might be right. I think I now remember them being very annoying.

Originally posted by LoSTsOuL:

Different Strokes for different folks I guess. SR1 being a bit aimless and letting you figure things out on your own was part of the charm allot like Elden Ring, Zelda, & Metroid. I just dont find walking from point A to B in a linear fashion very interesting

I prefer Sekiro and Darks Soul 3 over Elden Ring but I still enjoyed Elden Ring. I like the idea of meaningful exploration but not the idea of large empty maps that pretty much function as interactive loading screens to the next event. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of open world games feel like to me.

When it comes to games with a good story, I want a linear experience. It helps me remember the story better, and I feel like the writers have better control and so the writing is better too. It's very similar to fixed camera angles in that way. The only story focused, open world game I've enjoyed a lot is Witcher 3. Everything else was either less than great, or I liked the idea of the game rather than the game itself(e.g. Elder Scrolls).

This is clearly all a matter of taste, so I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement here. Still, it's interesting to hear other's perspective on the things I like.

[LoSTsOuL]

Originally posted by Archon Vulcan:

When it comes to games with a good story, I want a linear experience. It helps me remember the story better, and I feel like the writers have better control and so the writing is better too.

Agreed. Though having some goodies along the way is always a plus. its just the fact that there is no reason to engage with the world around you in SR2 case

[...]

It feels as a skeleton of a game, or as a vessel awaiting a game that never was. You've remarkably polished, well animated cutscenes and lovely looking interconnected locations. So the effort/funds were clearly spent. Yet you traverse those locations back and forth, again and again, for no other reason other than to pad the length. There are no power ups to find, nor optional abilities, nor optional areas to discover. And one can imagine all sorts of possibilities these locales and the fact that you traverse them in different time periods could open: perhaps the initial idea was that at one point the player would be able to use time chambers at will to go back and forth in time, perhaps making changes in the past that would open new paths and optional finds in the future. Perhaps some mandatory puzzles would've been based around this. Another layer on top of the first game's phasing between planes.
And the combat too, like they had good intentions at the start, and then then just cheesed it in the end so that one can just avoid combat or, where one can't, button mash with the reaver (hell the remaster has an achievement for defeating three late game enemies within one minute I think, so button mashing is very much expected).
Really, the only improvement over the original is that the puzzles are more diverse. The rest feels like a rushed placeholder for something else.

[Paradoks_DB]

Soul Reaver 2 was one of my biggest gaming disappointments (though nowhere near as big as Blood Omen 2). I could forgive this game a lot, but that was because I liked the first one so much.

Story is great and writing is the best in the series. Voice acting is as good as it gets. Presentation was great for its time. But the gameplay…
Horrible saving system (often requiring 40 minutes of playing before saving becomes an option).
Worst design decision possible when it comes to level design: 100% linearity with forced backtracking, and most most of the game being one long corridor through which the player kept running back and forth.
Zero optional content.
No bosses.
Combat that was more complex, but simultaneously less fun. And this port seems to have some hit detection issues on top of that.
The only gameplay aspect that was improved were the puzzles. Forges are probably the only highlight.

Funny thing is – Blood Omen 2 that was being developed at the same time turned out to be the exact opposite. It plays mostly fine, but the story/writing/atmosphere aspect was butchered.
I still think that the franchise would be in a different spot today, if back then CD released one complete game instead of two half-games.

[there is no band]

Well Blood Omen 2 wasn't even meant to be a LoK game wasn't it? Or at least that was the story years ago, that it was an unrelated Dreamcast game that was abandoned and then repurposed as a Blood Omen sequel with the original story being thrown out, hence the story we got feeling so poor and unnecessary. But as a game it is better than Soul Reaver 2 for sure even with all the jank and obviously lower budget.

[there is no band]

Frankly Soul Reaver 2 would've been more fondly remembered if it was a stage based game like Defiance even if I imagine there might have been some resistance to it initially. Seems like that was clearly the intention for the series, focus on story and cinematic setpieces. Especially looking at what Henning was into later.
Instead it feels like some unholy halfway hybrid where they couldn't decide whether to go 3D metroidvania route again or opt more more railroaded story-centric experience.