Well, the PS2 is going strong, isn't it? Definitely the best system to ever hit the market.
Unfortunately, I can't quite say the same for your review.
Of course, anything by Zig is bound to be a good read, and this is no exception, but this review lacks so much focus that I spent most of my time rereading the same paragraphs, and ultimately I came away with one big "huh?" An interested huh, to be sure, because you are obviously enthusiastic about the game (and push me ever closer to actually picking it up... at least I love the art style).
But you never really tell me why I should buy it. At least not in a clear fashion.
Your thesis is presented at the end of the review: "Closed minds will find Eternal Poison to be a finely-crafted strategy RPG. Open minds will find a lot more, including fresh takes on familar themes: religion, altruisim, selfishness, and the double-edged nature of justice. I spent a week of vacation playing Eternal Poison"
It's a good thesis. But why put it here? Why not put it at the start instead of the obligatory jail bait thing, and then go on to prove it?
You spend most of the review talking about the mechanics and basically saying that they've been done before. You never say if they've been done better here, or even really if they work in the setting. The biggest problem is you never tell me whether the game is fun to play. You mention 30 minutes per battle... it had better be fun with that kind of time investment! At least... I imagine its an investment... you never really say how many battles you fight, either, or how the game progresses.
Overall, I'm left with a hazy image of a strategy RPG that's much like other strategy RPGs except in its art and dark story. Maybe that's what you wanted me to get, but I think the haze could've been cleared up a bit with a little bit better planning.
Unfortunately, I can't quite say the same for your review.
Of course, anything by Zig is bound to be a good read, and this is no exception, but this review lacks so much focus that I spent most of my time rereading the same paragraphs, and ultimately I came away with one big "huh?" An interested huh, to be sure, because you are obviously enthusiastic about the game (and push me ever closer to actually picking it up... at least I love the art style).
But you never really tell me why I should buy it. At least not in a clear fashion.
Your thesis is presented at the end of the review: "Closed minds will find Eternal Poison to be a finely-crafted strategy RPG. Open minds will find a lot more, including fresh takes on familar themes: religion, altruisim, selfishness, and the double-edged nature of justice. I spent a week of vacation playing Eternal Poison"
It's a good thesis. But why put it here? Why not put it at the start instead of the obligatory jail bait thing, and then go on to prove it?
You spend most of the review talking about the mechanics and basically saying that they've been done before. You never say if they've been done better here, or even really if they work in the setting. The biggest problem is you never tell me whether the game is fun to play. You mention 30 minutes per battle... it had better be fun with that kind of time investment! At least... I imagine its an investment... you never really say how many battles you fight, either, or how the game progresses.
Overall, I'm left with a hazy image of a strategy RPG that's much like other strategy RPGs except in its art and dark story. Maybe that's what you wanted me to get, but I think the haze could've been cleared up a bit with a little bit better planning.
Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."
