Is it fair to review this game without having played the original PS2 version? No clue. Perhaps I could rate it higher had I played the O.G Yakuza. Either way, I've got my qualms about this game.
Yakuza 0 is a near-masterpiece of a game. I love it to bits. It was also my first Yakuza game I've played. So when I played this game, I was frustrated, to say the least. The story wasn't very poignant. The characters, while likeable, didn't have this oomph that it's prequel had. The gameplay can be as satisfying as it has the ability to anger me. A friend told me "When I play a PS3 Yakuza game, the first thing I do is to get a certain item before doing anything else". This sort of thing definitely sours the mood: the necessity of obtaining an optional item raises questions about the game's design, and how certain enemies do what they can do.
In fact, I'll have to say this right now:
I played Yakuza Kiwami 2 years ago. I played it until the last chapter, got to a part that frustrated me so much that I exited and uninstalled the game. The frustrations were there, and I blamed it for being basically unplayable.
This year, I went through the game again. This time, I obtained the aforementioned item and breezed through the fight that once stumped me. It's not even a bittersweet feeling. I still feel frustration. And it's not like this one fight was the only one you had to encounter in the game. I'm sure Yakuza players know what I'm talking about.
I find it weird that the rating of this game highly depends on my experience with other games within the series. Like I said: would this have been 4 stars if this were my first Yakuza game, or less? Does rating this game even have a point? Should I be rating the series as is instead? I dunno, man, this game was fine. I liked the sidequests, how about that?
Yakuza 0 is a near-masterpiece of a game. I love it to bits. It was also my first Yakuza game I've played. So when I played this game, I was frustrated, to say the least. The story wasn't very poignant. The characters, while likeable, didn't have this oomph that it's prequel had. The gameplay can be as satisfying as it has the ability to anger me. A friend told me "When I play a PS3 Yakuza game, the first thing I do is to get a certain item before doing anything else". This sort of thing definitely sours the mood: the necessity of obtaining an optional item raises questions about the game's design, and how certain enemies do what they can do.
In fact, I'll have to say this right now:
I played Yakuza Kiwami 2 years ago. I played it until the last chapter, got to a part that frustrated me so much that I exited and uninstalled the game. The frustrations were there, and I blamed it for being basically unplayable.
This year, I went through the game again. This time, I obtained the aforementioned item and breezed through the fight that once stumped me. It's not even a bittersweet feeling. I still feel frustration. And it's not like this one fight was the only one you had to encounter in the game. I'm sure Yakuza players know what I'm talking about.
I find it weird that the rating of this game highly depends on my experience with other games within the series. Like I said: would this have been 4 stars if this were my first Yakuza game, or less? Does rating this game even have a point? Should I be rating the series as is instead? I dunno, man, this game was fine. I liked the sidequests, how about that?