SHENMUE III - REVIEW ROUNDUP

It’s pretty much just him experiencing frustrating or awkward moments and groaning or making a little comment or two. Not as awful as a Jim Sterling review, but it is meant to make the game look terrible and the comments reflect that. The ending sequence and LAN Di fight are the main things he calls out.
 
Last edited:
Never heard of him, but he seems pretty popular.

Shenmue has always been divisive.

Hope it drives a few more sales.
 
One review late to the party.

8/10


Thank you! Finally something not awful
 
Look, the story sucks, but I don't see how you can objectively give this game a 5 out of 10, especially considering that it's a Kickstarter game on such a meager budget. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but there is still a solid game there bracketing a lousy excuse for storytelling.

I mean, scores that low should be reserved for broken ass games, not Shenmue 3.
 
Look, the story sucks, but I don't see how you can objectively give this game a 5 out of 10, especially considering that it's a Kickstarter game on such a meager budget. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but there is still a solid game there bracketing a lousy excuse for storytelling.

I mean, scores that low should be reserved for broken ass games, not Shenmue 3.



Well, that's actually a good question indeed. In the end, it all comes down to each one's scaling.
On my personal scale, a 5 is an average game. Not a bad game, not a good one. Especially not a broken one. But it all comes down to each publications. For those who hands out a lot of 10s and give 6-7 to average game, a 5/10 sounds like a shitty game.

But for a normal and fair publication, a 5 out of 10 for Shenmue 3 doesn't shock me. Is it harsh ? Maybe. But that's actually something you can explain and make a case for.
 
Well, that's actually a good question indeed. In the end, it all comes down to each one's scaling.
On my personal scale, a 5 is an average game. Not a bad game, not a good one. Especially not a broken one. But it all comes down to each publications. For those who hands out a lot of 10s and give 6-7 to average game, a 5/10 sounds like a shitty game.

But for a normal and fair publication, a 5 out of 10 for Shenmue 3 doesn't shock me. Is it harsh ? Maybe. But that's actually something you can explain and make a case for.

For a major publication like GameStop, a 5 is a very bad score. That’s according to their scale.
 
Look, the story sucks, but I don't see how you can objectively give this game a 5 out of 10, especially considering that it's a Kickstarter game on such a meager budget. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but there is still a solid game there bracketing a lousy excuse for storytelling.

I mean, scores that low should be reserved for broken ass games, not Shenmue 3.
I could see some people getting to the grinding and being completely turned off by it.

There's a lot of confusion and consistency when it comes to review scales. Tim Ferris has a good idea in removing 7 from scales, as 7 represents good. I think that makes sense.
 
I could see some people getting to the grinding and being completely turned off by it.

There's a lot of confusion and consistency when it comes to review scales. Tim Ferris has a good idea in removing 7 from scales, as 7 represents good. I think that makes sense.

Grinding doesn’t make a game objectively bad.
 
For a lot of people it does, especially when it's mandatory and there's no reward for it.

Grinding through training in Shenmue 3 in order to beat a boss, even if you find it repulsive, does not make it deserving of getting all-time low scores.
 
I'm pretty sure there's a mountain of all-time great games that feature copious amounts of grinding, though.
It's relative to the rest of the game, whatever that game is. I've grinded in games before and there was pay off. If it's just pointless grinding for the sake of adding length then that's not fun. Just because I don't mind grinding in one game, doesn't mean I want to do it in every game.
 
If you want to reduce the grind in SIII, just play on Easy. Done.

I dislike grinding in most games, especially JRPGs that would've been fantastic 30 hour games stretched to 50-100 hours -- that really annoys me -- but it all depends on what the "grind" consists of.

I agree that the narrative justification for some of the grinding in III is pretty weak (the pail toss bookie, buying an extremely expensive move) but the act of grinding, whether for money or kung fu, was varied enough that I never grew frustrated by it. If I was tired of wood chopping I'd pick herbs. If I was tired of picking herbs I'd fish. If I was tired of horse stance and one-inch punch I'd master some moves. If I ran out of moves I'd buy some more, maybe fight in a tournament etc.

The cyclical nature of the economy worked for me. I feel like that's one of the key differences between those who really like III and those who don't, because investing yourself in all the "side stuff" is such an integral part of the experience.
 
I beat the bookie on my third play thru--live on stream so i can prove it if necessary--without training once. Point being, If you get accustomed to the underrated combat system, then the training isn't quite as mandatory as the game leads you to believe. Not quite Shenmue 1+2 level of not-needing-much-training, but still possible.
 
Back
Top