Metareview: Valhalla Knights

by Andrew Yoon { Apr 18th 2007 at 7:30AM }

Valhalla Knights looked so promising when it was first previewed so many months ago. Looks like it'll join the ever-growing collection of RPG failures on our system. The critics, for the most part, have bashed XSEED's latest, telling you to stay far, far away from it:

1UP (35/100) likens the experience to torture: "I can't remember the last time I felt so constricted as a gamer. Sure, running around the dungeons and slashing through enemies is enjoyable enough -- and, dare I say it, even fun at times. But as soon as you attempt to play through Valhalla Knights like its an actual game, it completely falls apart. The viselike grip Valhalla Knights holds."
G4 (40/100) thinks the game is too old-school for its own good: "This is not a game for the impatient, especially since there's no in-game help system. When it comes to combat tactics or building a party, you have to learn by doing (and probably dying)."
IGN (53/100) wanted to like the game, but couldn't: "Valhalla Knights succeeded at impressing me with fun, real-time combat, completely pissing me off with drawn-out quests and eventually driving me away due to the complete lack of anything resembling story progression."

Ouch! Those are some of the harshest reviews we've read in quite some time. Valhalla Knights is now available in stores ... if you dare pick it up!

Tags: 1up, g4, ign, jrpg, metacritic, metareview, rpg, valhalla knights, ValhallaKnights, xseed

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

txa1265 @ Apr 18th 2007 8:08AM

From 1Up: "But don't support a game just because it fills a niche genre. Support it because it does that genre well."

I still don't know ... but $40 for that ...

merc25 @ Apr 18th 2007 9:46AM

The reader reviews have been 7-8 out of ten,so who are your going to trust. I will pick this up next week.

.P@bL�// CeRoTrEs @ Apr 18th 2007 9:58AM

i was waiting for this game for some time,too bad for the critics but im gona try it the same.

txa1265 @ Apr 18th 2007 12:29PM

Re #2: "The reader reviews have been 7-8 out of ten,so who are your going to trust. I will pick this up next week."

Since the game isn't out yet, those reader reviews are fanboy trolling, as far as I'm concerned.

Kade Storm @ Apr 18th 2007 1:57PM

Txa, they could very well be reviews from Japanese gamers, or gamers who've played the Jap version.

Philip Wesley @ Apr 18th 2007 3:07PM

Or they could be readers who work for the company that released the game. :-P

Kade Storm @ Apr 18th 2007 3:18PM

I know my friend isn't working for the company, and he's one of the few who gave the game a high rating. Shall we continue speculating?

txa1265 @ Apr 18th 2007 4:01PM

Yes, but what is the purpose of having reviewers? This site is *vehement* about citing review scores as a defense of how the PSP has plenty of good games - but when the scores go against you, you say 'forget reviews and go to the reader reviews'. Sorry - doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately most reader reviews are worthless - either too low to skewer a game based on an agenda or too high for the same reason or unbridled enthusiasm.

Sure, you could end up quibbling, but at this point I don't really believe that whether or not this game is 'great' is even debatable.

Kade Storm @ Apr 18th 2007 4:43PM

I don't care what this site uses to cite the PSP's success. Kindly do not apply it standards to me; out of all of you debating/talking heads, I've probably been the one to religiously abstain from citing 'meta-critic' and what not else.

Furthermore, I don't care about views on reader reviews, or other reviews either. Sure, they can be misleasing, but so can excessive objectivity, which has become the trend of today. Look at it this way: According to those ratings, this game is worse than Ashtonishia Story - is that an empirical fact? And over and above all, you can't tell me to disregard a reader's view, while conforming to the views of an official reviewer. Last time I checked, they too were humans, and not oracles from the great beyond. I've read better reviews from some serious contributers on GameFaqs - better written, with an honest declaration and evaluation of the game's 'x-factor'.

As far as the reader ratings on gamespot and IGN go, even I wouldn't buy into that 8-the-great level rating. But that's the same that I can say for a 3 out of 10 from an official reviewer, whose opinion is apparently now being shoved down my throat like some scientific factoid, which it is not.

txa1265 @ Apr 18th 2007 5:01PM

One thing reviewers are not (by and large) is empirical. That is a pet peeve of mine with review scores - some places still have 89/100 like they can actually attribute points like that!

What I was saying was that review aggregates provide a general picture, and that picture says that while perhaps a very few people could love this game, it would be for very non-rational reasons because the game itself is not very good.

And getting the context (x-factor) is very important, and that is the reason to read reviews rather than just browse scores.

But hey, this comes from a guy who enjoyed Tao's Adventure DS and Dungeon Lords PC while trashing them both in reviews ;)

Kade Storm @ Apr 18th 2007 5:30PM

Exactly! I too, enjoyed Tao's Adventure on the DS! Oddly enough, I also enjoyed Splinter Cell Essentials, despite its glaring flaws.

I mean, I've read some of the Japanese reviews, and as just a hack and slash title, Valhalla is okay. At least from some of the sincere opinions that I have read on this game. I am confident, although I haven't played the game yet, that this title will be better than Ashtonishia Story.

Now, this average, so to speak - it's a rough way to get a general idea, but certainly not as accurate enough for my fancy. I mean, I remember this one game--can't recall the name--got a 5 from GameSpot, and an 8 from IGN! And then, I also didn't appreciate the general reviews for games like Gundam SEED Never Ending Tomorrow; it was as stable as the prior PS2 gundam titles, but suffered by the standards of 2004 (although we had no gundam-based games from 2004 to compare its mechanics against).

I digress. The point is that I like to read reviews, and largely disregard numbers. At least that way, I can know what to expect, and perhaps realise that a game with a bad score might still have a niche.

I enjoy my share of hack and slash. I am tired of turn-based RPGs, so I'm willing to give this game a try, before I make a final judgement, even if the overall/general scores from most websites deem it a creative failure.

lightspeed @ Apr 19th 2007 7:02PM

puuhlease, if you listen to the critics, your missing out. the term idiots comes to mind. this game is a great rpg. blows the doors off ffxi. hands down. only it wont take you a million hours to play.

xorzisten @ Apr 19th 2007 7:14PM

well i was planning on getting this, but I just burned my fingers on monster kingdoms, jevel summoner, which was crap, and these games seems kind of similar, they have the same feel, so im holding back, I hope pspfanboy does a review comparing valhalla knights too other recent games of the genre on psp.

anythin @ Apr 29th 2007 2:48AM

i do love gurumin better for its action

txa1265 @ Apr 29th 2007 1:58PM

Re #12. "puuhlease, if you listen to the critics, your missing out. the term idiots comes to mind."

Not to single you out, but this is a general problem here - people take bad review and say 'reviewers are idiots' and then turn around and quote metacritic scores to prove all of the good games the PSP has ... can't have it both ways, folks ...

I still haven't picked it up - ended getting pulled into a baby showed at work for someone who used to work for me on Friday ...

Panzival @ Apr 29th 2007 3:02PM

Not worth it. Don't get this. I just finished this game and I gotta say... this is really repetitive. The storyline is crap. Barely any items. Each class has like 3-6 weapons. The exp system is messed the hell up. And there's only 12 dungeons give or take 1. Go pick up a better game like montser hunter.