maru's Way of the Samurai 3 review

Hey, kick-ass review. Anyone who has read my Way of the Samurai review should know that I pretty much hated the game, but that I did really enjoy the CYOA branching plots, which is actually done better in that game than any other I've seen before or since (including the one you all know I'm thinking about).

You do an incredible job of making that system sound as cool as it really was. Then you do something I love in a review. Call me a martyr, but when the rug is pulled out from me and all my hopes are taken away... I love that.

Yeah, you make WOTS3 sound pretty shitty. Good voice here, too. I could've stood to hear a little bit more about combat, because that was a pretty contentious point with me on WOTS1, but it wasn't necessary to the review. After all, you'd already convinced me the game had no soul. Who cares about combat after that realization?

Watch out for little errors: "An FAQ is a prequisite," for instance.

It's cool to read a bunch of reviews in a series of games, especially when they're well done.

However, "An FAQ" is technically correct. Some people pronounce the letters out. I think there was a minor holy-war on GameFAQs over "faks" versus "eff-ay-queue" after a poll-of-the-day. I actually think the eff-ay-queue people won.

The poor brainwashed masses. (/joke)

Oh interesting! I never pronounced it as the letters! For me, for that to be grammatically correct, it would have to be F.A.Q. but that's just the way I read.

thanks for the praise. it means a lot.

"I think there was a minor holy-war on GameFAQs over "faks" versus "eff-ay-queue" after a poll-of-the-day. I actually think the eff-ay-queue people won."

The irony here is that I actually say GameFACKs, but when it's just FAQ by itself I say the letters.

I agree with zipp concerning the intro and build up. I was really fascinated until about paragraph five, when things started to fall apart. I had to read that paragraph a few times before I really understood what was going on.

Also as zipp noted, there are a few technical issues.

This has potential to be a really great review, but it could use some work both in terms of clarity (at times) and some sprucing up technical issues.

Why the hell did this post twice? Guess I'll just delete one.