Suikoden II and Wild Arms 2: A Double Standard in RPGs

by Howard Kleinman

When asked to post an editorial decrying Suikoden I found myself in an interesting position. Being a long time RPGamer, I've learned which sites offer reviews with which I agree. Last October virtually every internet RPG site and gaming site in general (save RPGamer), posted glowing reviews of an "Old-School" style RPG called "Suikoden II." Having bought my PSX specifically for Final Fantasy VII and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, I hadn't played the original, but saw that it was generally well regarded amongst the RPGaming populace. Suikoden II was supposed to offer more of the same great experience the original offered. I figured I could get away with playing the sequel while ignoring the original, at least for a while.

Well, I paid the $40 at my local gaming shop (it's an Electronics Boutique for those who care) and I brought the game home. While it was initially entertaining, I soon realized that Suikoden II was the most average RPG I had ever played. Its only great innovation, its 108 characters, was actually a weakness. The game's storyline lacked all cohesion, picking up characters, making them nearly interesting, and then abandoning them entirely until they became nothing but statistics to manipulate in the excessively easy and dull battle system. The main story was also dull with horrible characters and a cliche storyline. Worse, the game gives you many of those pick choice A or choice B setups where only one choice is right. I'm sure we're all familiar with these situations. Suikoden II abuses this to such an extreme that I felt like the game was manipulating me.

This is even worse considering most linear RPGs at least give the characters more personality so I could at least enjoy the story. Alas, the characters were poorly written as well. Luca Blight is quite simply the worst villain since the end of the "you have to kill someone at the end of the game" era before Final Fantasy IV gave us Golbez. His gimmick is that he's mean. Unfortunately there's no motivation to his cruelty, and he lacks the personality or humor that makes Kefka a superior villain. The hero being mute has worked in exactly one instance: Chrono Trigger. Crono was never a leader by speeches or by encouraging others to fight. Crono was no general. Crono was merely a great fighter with a lot of enthusiasm.

The Hero in Suikoden II is supposed to be a great leader, yet he cannot make his own choices and his decisions in the extremely mediocre tactical battles are all decided by Shu, his chief strategist. It seems Shu devises all the reconnaissance and recruitement operations as well. Are we supposed to believe that "The Hero" is still the hero? The lady lead, Nanami, is annoying, whiny and generaly unappealing. I couldn't stand her in the least. As for Jowy, his motivations were weak. Why didn't he just end the war after Blight was killed? He had seen the cruelty of this man first-hand, yet he continues his war. Was I supposed to feel sympathy for him? The game sure tried to convince me of that, but unlike the forced opposition of father and son in the Star Wars films, the forced opposition of Jowy and the Hero was unconvincing. Add the the equasion excessively dull battle music and excessively major overworld themes and you have a game that is so underdeveloped and trite that it's downright irritating.

About three weeks ago, while taking a break from the excellent, but frustrating Vagrant Story, I bought Wild Arms 2. As was the case with Suikoden, I have yet to play the original Wild Arms. Wild Arms 2 has received negative reviews for being too much like the original, which is odd given that this factor was never a detriment to the reviews for Suikoden II. While Suikoden II's minor upgrades in graphics and gameplay were lauded, Wild Arms 2's upgrade to fully interactive 3D environments from the 2D of the original were viewed as not enough of an upgrade. While most of what I have read about the gameplay has been improved, or at least changed, it is still accused of being more of the same, which in this case, destroys the whole game.

Well, Wild Arms 2 was my first taste of Wild Arms, and so far I I like it. The storyline is rather sweet on the surface yet dark underneath in the familiar, yet still effective, anime style. The hero being possessed by a demon is an interesting concept that is well executed within the game. The characters and storyline, while not equal to that of Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, Xenogears or many of the Final Fantasy games, is entertaining and original. The gameplay features some great variety. The puzzles are well designed and difficuly enough to make me think, but not difficult enough to make me run to an FAQ out of desperation and frustration. The battle system features a good increase in difficulty and great differences between the characters which offers great customizability and a good number of choices, allowing you to choose how the game should be played, while keeping the party small enough to develop the characters for more than 30 minutes. The game is also loaded with secrets, which provide hours of fun exploring and wondering "How can I get there?" The game pulls it off without feeling like it has no center, which is Suikoden II's biggest fault.

I must ask if there is a double standard at work with these reviewers. Why should Suikoden II receive near perfect scores for being "more of the same?" Why should Wild Arms 2 be decried for the same reasons? Is it because of "Old-School" resentment of 3D graphics? Is it because people like Konami as a company more than Contrail? I, for one, would like to see an explanation.