Last Remnant PS3 hopes fade further Comments by Robert Purchese

Last Remnant was poor, so I'm not suprised. Dedicated PS3 fans should count themselves lucky not to have suffered through this game. A lot of the Square Enix 360 stuff has been half arsed to say the least!

I can't see that too many people will be worried, given how mediocre the first game performed. I'd imagine poor sales on the 360 and projected similar sales on the PS3 means the time and effort in a port would not be money well spent.

Squeenix just can't seem to hit their stride with RPGs of late. I've lost almost all interest in the genre, so there's one formerly dedicated fan gone.

I dont think PS3 fans want these second rate 360 JRPGs.

Although if SE released these games multiplatform to begin with, their sales wouldnt be anywhere near as bad as they are now.

Most of the games barely broke the 500K mark worldwide. They're in seriously trouble if they dont change what they're doing.

It's a middling, somewhat dull and uninspired RPG anyway made worst by the fact that the 360 version had appalling framerate issues (it's another Unreal Engine 3 RPG). I can't imagine the PS3 version would have ran any better. The combat was quite exciting and epic but the rest of the game was yawnsome. I sold my copy after just two weeks.

The PC version was much better performance wise from the demo I tried but the game is still boring. I'd say PS3 owners are not missing out on anything here.

"A lot of the Square Enix 360 stuff has been half arsed to say the least!"

It seems they try too much to please the Western audience (as HD consoles don't have much of an impact on the Japanese market) and with that effort alienate the people that used to like their games while simultaneously failing to attract new blood.

edit: funny, my score dropped so I got some -1 for something that even the most rabid fanboy couldn't think to be offensive. Guess it's personal... ;)

Judging by all of the negative rep here, I'd say there's a stealth Last Remnant fan stealthing around these comments.

I can't really belive how this crap game got even higher scores than Star Ocean or Infinte U. Those must be really terrible then.

I really did want to give it a shot. But if a game takes 20 hours toi actually become good it's not really worth it.

@menage: That's the problem with RPGs. If an action game (like Prototype) is a bit rubbish, it doesn't matter as you can dip in and out, and complete it pretty quickly. But if an RPG is rubbish, it's not even worth getting in to and it's going to take up too much of your precious time.

What's significant here is not really the game in question but that SqEnix are choosing not to release a game for the PS3. If it's a one off, then as others have said - who cares. If it starts becoming a trend though that would be worrying.

@woodnotes - Exactly.

One of the reasons I never got into Lost Odyssey was that I found the lead character dull and the story took far, far too long to get going. The random battles, something I'm not a fan of at all these days, just made the game unbearable for me so I stopped playing at the 10 or 12 hour mark (I think I reached disc 2). I understand that this game is very popular with 360 owners but I just never "clicked" with it like I did Eternal Sonata and Blue Dragon for example.

Don't worry PS3 fans, it was a piece of shit anyway.

@lambtron - It's only worrying if Square-Enix choose not to release the good RPGs on the PS3, you know the ones that sold in large numbers.

I'm guessing that The Last Remnant sold relatively poorly on the 360 and PC so it's perhaps understandable that Square-Enix might decide to cut their loses and not bother with a PS3 version if they don't think there's a market for it. It certainly got mediocre reviews and that wouldn't help sell the game some six months down the line.

Having more games, is good.

Tenchu Z got a 3 or something here...i loved it

Was one of the PS2's strengths not having a big catalogue even if some of the games were niche / average?

...I've not played LR....but i'd rather have the choice than not...that's what our western way of life is built on...bewildering choice...the power to choose any old game even if people say it's shite

Hey, LR was good, provided you realised it was more of an MMRPG (but single player) than a normal JRPG. There was a lot to do, and it provided a lot of entertainment... BUT they made a lot of stupid MMRPG-like design decisions which were out of place in a single player game. (eg. having to continually re-spawn a map until a named mob finally spawns).

The main highlight was the huge sense of satisfaction after beating the later bosses, many of whom were very very tough. I haven't played a game of a long time that gave me that sense of achievement. (Winning a battle that takes 2hrs+ is pretty satisfying, although I guess it could be controller-breaking if you fail!).

@Darren

Heh, I had just the same thing with Eternal Sonata. I'd rather have random battles which are actually worth fighting than the same fucking rats and toads throughout whole dungeons. I love(d) JRPG's, but Only Blue Drgaon and LO were really worth it on 360.

I hope Persona hits the HD era soon.

"Was one of the PS2's strengths not having a big catalogue even if some of the games were niche / average? "

Spot on.

The argument that PS3 owners are better off with not having a "bad" game on their system would only be true if they were forced to buy it.

As this is obviously not the case, I don't see how a reduction in choice can ever be considered a good thing. I have no doubt that there are people out there who are disappointed by this news.

Although it's probably good news that they're carefully protecting their bottom line, I think it also means that Square Enix will be more reluctant to take a chance on new IP, which is also disappointing.

Choice is always nice, although realistically if the costs don't balance with the estimated sales then its simply not going to happen, regardless of what the consumer wants. :(

Was one of the PS2's strengths not having a big catalogue even if some of the games were niche / average?

The great thing the PS2 had was that average RPG's would just get buried under the pile of good/great RPG's, this generation has had too few RPG's that you'd justify buying on day 1 at full price.

not really surprised by that "bombshell"

The S-E exclusives for 360 really aren't up to task. If they offered to port infinite undiscovery, for example, I'd tell them to keep it!!

TLR was abysmal on PC so I don't expect much of a PS3 version if there ever will be one...

Not a huge loss really, PS3 owners aren't missing much with this.

I found it entertaining for a few hours but the technical issues really got to me in the end.

I regret getting the game but to term it as a 'second rate X360 game' when it was also available on PC and would have been available on PS3 DOESNT change the fact that the game was an absolutely disaster whatever the system its appear on and not the fault of the system!

I am embarrased to say I got the game and will be trading it in.

Square-Enix doing a piss poor job for quite a few rpgs recently. I did though enjoy Infinite Discovery after getting past the first 4 hours or so and its got into a stride but no not an enjoyable RPG game such as Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon or even Mass Effect on X360 or of course a huge number of classical PS2/PS1 RPGs.

Seem only FFXIII getting a lot of attention as something for us all to look forward to for the treatment of our RPG addicition that are not getting served enough nowadays!

I haven't actually played the game, so I can't really comment on the quality. But it seems like most of these 360 JRPG's are games that would have sold by the boat load on the PS2, the biggest problem with things like Lost Odyssey, besides the fact its on a console that's not particularly popular in Japan, is their lack of innovation.

Or maybe the game is just bad, but my point is that the Playstation fanboys that always critisise these games so much, are the ones who would have snapped them up in seconds, if they were on a console they owned.

It doesn't seem people are really understanding the point. My guess is that if it's not worth Squeenix's time to port LR, then there may be other games they don't feel are worth it. I'd also suspect other devs and publishers are feeling the same. It'll be interesting to see how stories like this and the Acti threats play out - but this isn't a good thing no matter how you slice it. Less games is never "better" no matter how crappy you feel those games are.

I'm sorry WinterSnowblind, but you can't compare TLR to LO. The latter is a fantastic game, that I'd agree is something PS3 fans are missing out on. TLR is a terrible game, and would have been a terrible game no matter what platform it was released on. PS2 owners might have "snapped it up", but I doubt they'd have been very happy with their purchase when they actually played it.

SE has to consider not making any more generically crap JRPGs. Of which they've done a lot recently.

How opinions differ. LO was fucking great in the battle dep.(like Dragonquest a bit actually).

Last Remnant sucked ass imo. It might have not taken 20 hours, but after 4 hours I called it quits cause I still wasn't having fun with all the blandness and convolution. I didn't care about anything, nott the story, not the chara's and certainly not the gameplay which really annoyed me to be honest. .

Dunno, maybe it was my mindset at the time. But it certainly wasn't great from the start. And almost every review agrees on that point. That it takes time to come together.

The thing that bugged me about TLR's combat was that it all seemed rather vague. Units looked indistinct, so working out the state of play at any time was unneccesarily drawn-out.

Also you were never given a decent view of the battlefield so it was hard to decide when to use flanking, rendering useless one of the most interesting aspects and selling points of the combat.

I can't say I was enthralled by the plot or characters either. It all seemed rather charmless, in my own opinion.

I gave it a fair crack of the whip, but gave up after about 8 hours play. I do know people who enjoyed TLR though, so saying 'Its shit, glad its not coming to PS3 now' seems rather churlish.

As others have stated, more choice is always preferable to less.

I liked last remnant, the battle system was very interesting. BUT it's by no means stellar, it's really a RPG for the hardcore fans of the genre, who want to look past the technical problems (frame rate + confusing camera), the generic plot and characters (except for Emma, I really liked her), and the underdeveloped world + background. I'd give it a 8 because I spent 50+ hours on it, but a 7 would be more accurate IMO.

one last thing where the hell is the fight night4 review its out tomoz? come on EG

I must admit I think Last Remnant would have been the best of the (admitedly pretty average) 360 JRPGs but it's technical issues really drag it down. If any console is in danger of stealing the PS2s JRPG crown it is the DS...

I really hoping that Vesperia bucks the trend of average to poor JRPGs on the 360.

"If any console is in danger of stealing the PS2s JRPG crown it is the DS..."

The DS can be an amazing RPG system if you're not too obsessed with graphics. Would love Atlus to do more original work on the system.

JRPG's have never been about the graphics at least on the PS2, maybe Final Fantasy being the exception.

the 360 is home to the rpg this gen taking the mantle from sonys ps2.anyway whats with the comment "scores" i keep getting -12 and its hurting my feelings was there really a need for this eurogamer?

The DS is a far better candidate to take that crown.

The problem we're seeing with JRPG's this gen, is that they're going to the Xbox 360 looking at breaking into the American market, and creating games to adjust to that, however looking at the sales in general it's like they're alienating their current userbase, without adding any new consumers in the US.

I think EG's rating system was in place because people usually typed +1 to a certain poster, I think this ratings system would be far better without the threshold and the negatives.

thats right the game is lack freedom of fight encounters, where you can control only a gang aka teams and even cant chose which skill you want to use in the right moment =/ in all other game is very good

Games like Last Remnant is seriously a matter of taste and what you are in need to get playign at that time Like for me it was exactly what i needed for an RPG. I got it on the PC not for my 360 and i was surprised on how much i enjoyed playing the game. Other than very good looking graphs it was in general very very fun and not repeatable lame battles and its why it kept me up as an RPG. Everythign is relative. Like its a fact that there are MANY ppl that would enjoy the game and you all know it like there are crappy games that some enjoy cause they get the kinks with it at the time.

So yeah like someone said, having more games and more options ( SPECIALLY from Square Enix ) is always good and nothing wrong with it. Unless you wanna be waiting for an Uncharted every 16 months to play from now on cause the developers pull back more and more due to expenses for the PS3 development.. Be serious and see it as a gamer already.

And again for me, as a fully personal opinion, Last remnant was actually more than decent RPG and I enjoyed it a lot so... Thats what should matter. Not the rating nor the thoughts about it of each individual that posts in threads for it. If only the ppl that liked it wasted time to post about it wouldnt make it a better game than it is.

I believe the west just aren't that facinated by the whole pre-pub kids saving the world idea from some horrible grown-up threat. The japanese developers should definitely stick with the general design of their games, but make some of them a bit more mature. And, oh, polished!