Lunar Threads

I remembered the other day when SSSC came out, that GamePro made the WORST review for it, ever. I googled it, and lo and behold the piece of garbage is on the interwebs. Not only did they give the game 2.5/5, but they describe Nall as a she who is a cross between a bat and a cat. - Which only proves they never even PLAYED the game, and if they had, they didn't read any of the dialogue.
Excerpt:
"There's also a comic-relief character, Nall (a cross between a cat and a bat), whose main function is to revive characters that have lost all their hit points. While she makes the game easier for first-timers, veterans of good RPGs like FFVII [!! FACK YOU!!]will find her assistance unnecessary. "

They're also angry that Working Designs didn't pack Lunar: Eternal Blue Complete in with the release- as if you don't already get enough for your $50 with all the add-ons that they want an ENTIRE extra game?! What the -Fatal Hopper-!!

Here's the rest.. be prepared to be angry:
http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/ ... -complete/

First, Nall is a he, not a she.
Second, Lunar 2 was set aside for a remake as *gasp* Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete
Third, the game has a great nostalgic feel. Just because it wasn't remade using the state of the art 3D graphics as FFVII or FFVIII doesn't automatically make it worthless. The story ALWAYS counts more than some lame 3D effects of the time. And you called FFVII a "good RPG," which makes it hard to take any review seriously, and adds a hint of bias. Next time just be honest and say "OMFG LOLOLOL NOES 3Dz HAX LAMER LOLOLOL FFVII ROXORZ LOLOLOLOL!"

~Phyco

I was gonna post that in the comment box, but you have to register. I'm not gonna soil my name by registering.

Hahaha nice Phyco-- me too, I was going to post a scathing reply but I didn't want to register and make it seem like their publication is more popular than it is...

Yeah... this is an 8-year old review...

You do know that most gaming magazines are just long lists of advertisements, right? GamePro in particular. If a particular gaming company wasn't sponsoring them / paying them off, then they wouldn't bother spending time on reviews. If a particular company was paying them, then they wouldn't give negative reviews (or get pressured out of doing so). KF

Of course this is an 8 year old review. Seriously though, just because you arn't sponsered to make a positive review doesn't mean that you are making any intelligent choices by giving a game a crappy review because of a female batcat and non FFVII graphics. I'm surprised that they didn't compar Ghaleon to Sephiroth.

Like Kiz said, it's an ancient review, and I do remember a lot of complaints over this review. GamePro has always been rubbish though. On top of that, it was never known for it's RPG coverage. That and EBC had already been announced by the time of that review, making the reviewer's comment about packing in the sequel even more laughable.

Just read it, and it was as inane as you said. I swear, since game designers discovered the polygon, I've seen so many people focusing on graphics, and little else. I hardly ever buy a game because it looks good, I want it to play good, too, and have a name I can trust, like LUNAR. Clearly, the reviewer wasn't, and I can't remember the last time I read through a GamePro. They're definitely running third, at least, behind GameInformer and EGM, so it's no skin off my nose. I even replayed SSSC all the way through a few months back, just for old times' sake, and I enjoyed it all the same. I guess the best way to dis this review is to keep playing it, and enjoying it.

The ironic thing is that they gave pretty good reviews to both Lunar:TSS and Lunar:EB, so they have no real excuse for screwing up things with Lunar:SSS...

In fact, I remember they used to have a feature where they'd play through the end bosses of games and give tips on how to beat them as well as show off the ending. One month, the game they finished off was Lunar:EB. Not only did they give it excellent praise at that point, but they not-so subtly dissed the infamous Nick Rox and GameFan, I believe, by saying that "unlike other game magazines, we actually play through games until completion before issuing reviews."

Bah! GamePro can go soak their heads for all I care. I'd like to know why exactly they were so fixated on the graphics. As long as it doesn't look outright bad, I don't care what the game looks like. Its the actual content the decides if its fun or not.

Alright, Nall is a GUY! So much for playing it through to completion, else they'd have known that.

LunarRaptor wrote:Bah! GamePro can go soak their heads for all I care. I'd like to know why exactly they were so fixated on the graphics. As long as it doesn't look outright bad, I don't care what the game looks like. Its the actual content the decides if its fun or not.

Alright, Nall is a GUY! So much for playing it through to completion, else they'd have known that.

Yeah, that really is the telling sign that they didn't play it through. For most of the game, I thought Nall was female because of the voice. Then I learned that small things can have high pitched voices.

Exactly. If you finish the game, you learn, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Nall is a dude.

Besides which, I'd expect adults who work at a job full time to know that detail about small things and high pitched voices. I'm going to guess that they did finish both school and college, after all.

Anyone who's ever watched a cartoon should know that small things have high-pitched voices. That's pretty universal in our culture.

For a while, I always thought the small things were female as well because of the voice, because females typically have higher-pitched voices. It took a while to get your rule out of it, and took watching many cartoons. Besides, from many cartoons, there's still the assumption that they'll have some other signifier for gender, like a hat, overalls, a twang, etc., because sexual ambiguity is dangerous.

Nall had no such thing going, while Ruby has that bow. Hence, with the higher pitched voice, it's perfectly natural to assume either an ambiguous or female character for Nall.

Hmm... maybe I just watched too many episodes of Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers when I was growing up. Thinking back on that show only one of the rodent characters had a high voice. It was a male character, but then again he was also the biggest of the Rescue Rangers.

I thought that Nall was a she at first, but it really didn't take very long to realize that Nall was a HE.

I don't know what's more pathetic. The review or the fact that people here are getting pissed over it. It's a review people; not the end of the world.

Actually, this topic was first posted at the end of last August and stopped being responded to in early September. (So maybe it's "pathetic" to rehash something that's been sitting for a while? Or perhaps it's what made the review so bad; a lack of attention for details.)

People aren't making this sound like the end of the world, they're just criticizing the review and how poorly it was done. Obviously, the person who wrote it didn't pay enough attention to details and the LUNAR-verse is very heavily detailed. With so much dialogue that you can come back to, enjoy, and be surprised by, it's a little disappointing that they didn't pay attention enough to realize that Nall was actually a boy (which, strangely, I realized early on; maybe about the time when they went to the Spring to find Luna?). Also, if they'd paid enough attention they might have enjoyed it more. The “poor graphics” don't matter at all when you have such a great story and such memorable characters (even if the people without faces were memorable).

Eh... if this came out sounding harsh towards you, I apologize. Just adding my two cents and letting you know that this is kind of old.

Actually, this topic was first posted at the end of last August and stopped being responded to in early September.

And?


So maybe it's "pathetic" to rehash something that's been sitting for a while?

I don't see how, as it's not like I was around back then to respond.


Obviously, the person who wrote it didn't pay enough attention to details and the LUNAR-verse is very heavily detailed. With so much dialogue that you can come back to, enjoy, and be surprised by, it's a little disappointing that they didn't pay attention enough to realize that Nall was actually a boy (which, strangely, I realized early on; maybe about the time when they went to the Spring to find Luna?). Also, if they'd paid enough attention they might have enjoyed it more.

I'm not saying that it's a good review by any means. I'm just saying that the review is only being bashed so harshly since it's a negative review. Had it been full of lies, but gave the game a 5/5, no one here would have made a topic like this. That's why this entire topic came across as a angry fanboy rant to me. I'm not trying to offend anyone, that's just how I saw it.


The “poor graphics” don't matter at all when you have such a great story and such memorable characters (even if the people without faces were memorable).

In your opinion that is. Poor graphics are a big flaw to many people.


Eh... if this came out sounding harsh towards you, I apologize. Just adding my two cents and letting you know that this is kind of old.

It's fine. I'm blunt, so I usually get responded to way more harshly than that.

Had it been full of lies, but gave the game a 5/5, no one here would have made a topic like this.

You can't substantiate that claim. And I can't see how you would know that. If I were to ever read such a review, then we'd know how I'd react.

I don't react well to blanket cynicism.

You can't substantiate that claim. And I can't see how you would know that. If I were to ever read such a review, then we'd know how I'd react.

Go to Gamefaqs, there's plenty of reviews like that. People constantly try to get well written negative reviews banned, but worship poorly written fanboy reviews. Maybe, I've spent too much time on the Lunar boards on Gamefaqs, but that also seems to be the case here. How many topics are their praising a review that was extremely negative towards the series? By my count zero...

Although, to be fair I haven't glanced over every single topic so I could be wrong.