Individual Entry
Sword, Give Me Strength
I started writing some initial Lifeline impressions but I want to get through more of it before I post any concrete thoughts. In brief: it is my belief that a good chunk of the reviews are criticising it fairly, but for the wrong reasons (if that makes sense). By no means is it a great game, but the technology isn't as bad as many make it out to be. IGN's review isn't too bad, excepting the "laughable" comparisons to the action sequences in Prince of Persia and Mark of Kri (what the hell kind of game was the reviewer expecting?)
The laggard impressions are also thanks to an in-the-wild find of the DC version of Soul Calibur. Since Soul Calibur 2 was my first foray into the series, my enthusiasm for this often proclaimed "Greatest 3D-Fighter Ever!" is subdued. It's a solid title, but its follow-up is superior in every way imaginable.
It's aged well, but was it really deserving of perfect 10s from IGN and Gamespot (amongst others.) Or am I missing something here?
March 08, 2004. Gaming.
Soul Calibur was simply an incredible entry into the world of 3-D fighting games, and on the Dreamcast it was mind-numbingly beautiful. Nothing on the PS2 was comparable graphically for about 2 or 3 generations, iirc. Furthermore, it built quite well upon Namco's success in adding different gameplay modes, a la Tekken 3 for PS.
Personally, I think it's certainly fair for the game to have received perfect 10's, which I don't take to mean absolutely timeless or unimprovable. The main thing, I think, is that Soul Calibur was just such a revelation, a big step forward. It's telling that, several years after Soul Calibur, it's sequel can only offer marginal improvements. SC1 was simply a much bigger leap than SC2 was for their respective times.
March 9, 2004 12:45 AM. Posted by: Walter.