The Last Remnant

 PC
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 267 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 193 out of 267
  2. Mixed: 47 out of 267
  3. Negative: 27 out of 267
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. AlienSpaceBats
    Oct 8, 2013
    4
    I really wanted to like this game. At first, things seemed promising, if a little dumb. At its best, The Last Remnant recalls numerous JRPGs that were released during the PS2's lifespan (in fact it reminds me of a bunch of 6th gen titles); at its worst it is tedious, bland, repetitive, filled with poorly explained mechanics (if at all) and 'walls' (bosses). Also goes against typical JRPGI really wanted to like this game. At first, things seemed promising, if a little dumb. At its best, The Last Remnant recalls numerous JRPGs that were released during the PS2's lifespan (in fact it reminds me of a bunch of 6th gen titles); at its worst it is tedious, bland, repetitive, filled with poorly explained mechanics (if at all) and 'walls' (bosses). Also goes against typical JRPG sensibilities with enemy scaling (grinding levels makes enemies tougher too), combat (which makes up 80% of the game) can be exciting and delivered in a turn based, cinematic manner, though mechanics are randomly unfair, frustrating and broken. Practically automated, the game takes away the majority of decision-making on the part of the player; you can not choose when to use a summon, special attacks, heal specific party members or use spells until the game gives you the option, even then, it chooses which spell that it will use for you. Outside of combat the game is equally obtuse, quests and storylines regularly grind to a halt because the player is not given a single clue about what to do next, just a single, unhelpful sentence in a red-lined speech bubble. Best left alone, The Last Remnant can provide a certain amount of fun for a time (what constitutes "Disc 1" on the 360 version) then you hit one of those walls.… Expand
  2. IanP
    Jul 3, 2009
    2
    I am baffled by all the high scores this game is recieving. Are there so few JRPGs on the pc that gamers are happy with this detestable example. As a rule I love JRPGs and games by square enix are usually a pretty good bet, however something has gone horribly wrong in the making of this game. The problem lies in the battle system. Instead of controllling individual characters who you give I am baffled by all the high scores this game is recieving. Are there so few JRPGs on the pc that gamers are happy with this detestable example. As a rule I love JRPGs and games by square enix are usually a pretty good bet, however something has gone horribly wrong in the making of this game. The problem lies in the battle system. Instead of controllling individual characters who you give specific commmands to, you instead control teams (known as unions) who you give vague actions to. At the start of each term you are given a seemingly random selection of commands, such as use magic, attack and use special attacks, to choose from. These command options are supposedly situational and linked to whoever you have as leader but they just feel completely arbitary. In a number of occasions I have recieved a game over simply because the game never gave me the option of healing (despite my characters being injured). Even if you get the command you actually want to use there is no guarantee that your team will end up using it as characters are prone to switching commands as the situation (which you have no further input into after your initial selection) evolves. Also, unlike traditional JRPGs, there is no notion of elemental weakness. While you can use either magic or physical attacks, there is no way of telling which will be more effective. Most times you end up just using the attack that has the highest AP cost and hoping for the best. The same applies to all the different weapon types and stances, there is no explaination of what they actually do or why you should use them. Initiating battles is a strange hybrid of the MMORPG system. Enemies are visible on the world map and to fight them you have to run near to them and ping (for want of a better word) them with the space bar. If the enemy runs into you without you pinging them they get a massive combat advantage over you. While the game encourages you to fight multiple groups of enemies at the same time, you often find yourself running back and forwards trying to lure a lone enemy away from the pack. The game does away with the classic notion of levelling and experience points. As you fight enemies your stats seem to randomly increase and characters gain more skills. There is a fourth stat that is named differently for each character (eg love, bravery etc) but no one seems to know what it does. As with many aspects of this game, things are just not explained properly. The learning curve is so steep as to be vertical. As for equipment you can only alter the main character Rush's gear. Everyone else in your party randomly levels up their gear as they go along. Characters in your party ask for components (which are dropped as loot for winning a battle) to improve their gear. However, annoyingly, they will only take the components from a battle and not from your inventory. For example if a character needs copper and despite you having twenty pieces in your posession you still have to go battle enemies that drop it if you want them to improve their weapon. For me personally this takes all the fun out of saving up and buying your team new equipment, which was often a large part of a JPRG. The premise of the last remnant is an interesting one so it's a shame that the story is so bland and straightforward. The graphics are ok, but even on a pretty decent pc the load time on some of the textures is epic. You can be halfway through a cut scene and textures are still popping up. The voice acting and sound are fine. It's a shame this game turned out the way it did. I really wanted to like it but the terrible game design conspired against me. If I can prevent even one person from wasting their money on this poor excuse for a JRPG then I'll be a happy man.… Expand
  3. ShaneF
    Nov 6, 2009
    4
    The game has a great storyline that's deeply involved with interweaving plots and is a novel masterpiece in that regard. The graphics are also superb and even on my less-than-perfect system, the game can run with high-rate graphics (though I have to use the smallest resolution to get it to run smoothly). The vast majority of different monsters, armor and characters individually are The game has a great storyline that's deeply involved with interweaving plots and is a novel masterpiece in that regard. The graphics are also superb and even on my less-than-perfect system, the game can run with high-rate graphics (though I have to use the smallest resolution to get it to run smoothly). The vast majority of different monsters, armor and characters individually are rather original and inspiring. However, the game lacks something that will allow you to bypass the VERY long cinematics. I often have to watch the same 2-10 minute long cinematic over and over and over again between fight attempts, which becomes nothing more than an inconvenience and an annoyance. Nobody cares to watch the same sequence over and over and over agian, people on the PC don't have the time or patience for this kind of thing. Next, the game lacks balance. Combat either comes in one or two varieties: You either win by a landslide, or you get one-shotted by a normal creature. I often find myself dying rather easily to the 'beginning' mission monsters; which, in any other game, wouldn't be an issue as the beginning missions are SUPPOSED to be the easiest. They also have a habit of placing high-level monsters into low-level areas. Such as Longbeak being in Dillmoor (which has around 230,000 Hit points on the PC version). They intentionally made the PC version ten-times harder than the X-Box version. What, are you punishing PC players for not using X-Box? I've died a little over 55 times playing the game, and I've not even made it 25% of the way through the game yet. Good game concept, just a poor way of putting it out there. Too much combat-focus as well, not enough character development. And Rush is, more or less, a very selfish and very inconsiderate character. Why they made him so immature is beyond me. They said Rush is to appeal to the Japanese audience. What...are they trying to promote selfishness and immaturity in their players in Japan? Something to think about, at least.… Expand
  4. DrBrogbo
    Nov 14, 2012
    2
    This game is horrible! On paper, the battle system sounds very interesting, with the ability to rush head-on at a unit, flank, counter-attack, etc. The problem is that, with the exception of the quick-time-event countering, combat devolves into a fuster-cluck mish-mash of arbitrary nonsense. Being able to form "unions" (tiny 1-5 man groups of units) and give them tactics sounds appealing,This game is horrible! On paper, the battle system sounds very interesting, with the ability to rush head-on at a unit, flank, counter-attack, etc. The problem is that, with the exception of the quick-time-event countering, combat devolves into a fuster-cluck mish-mash of arbitrary nonsense. Being able to form "unions" (tiny 1-5 man groups of units) and give them tactics sounds appealing, but it isn't. You can't really tell them what to do. You're given a predetermined list of commands (which are supposed to be smartly chosen based on context, but since fully-healed units are given the option to heal themselves, and units at the brink of death are not, it's easy to see the list is random), some of which make no sense, and not all of which are followed by your units. Telling a union to heal will see them charging into battle and attacking more often than not. If you're fighting in a battle of 5 unions or more, prepare to have absolutely no idea who is attacking who, which units are enemies and which are friendly, etc. Even once you've played for a few hours and gotten a hang of the "tactics," the game never becomes fun. Issuing orders to groups of units seems like it would make you feel like a commander (like in an RTS), but the battles are never large enough to feel that way. It simply feels like you're one step removed from combat, almost like you're watching someone else play an RPG. Plus, it seems like combat is either won without any challenge, or your units are wiped out in the first round. There are far too many battles early on where you have one unit in a union facing an enemy union of 3-4 weakling units, which will completely demolish you in one turn. Game over. Repeat ad nauseum. Maybe 14th time is the charm? This game is absolutely not fun in the slightest bit, and if I hadn't gotten this as part of a $10 7-game pack, I would be even more pissed off than I am right now. Avoid at all costs. Play Xenoblade or Last Story if you want a good modern JRPG.… Expand
  5. Kentathon
    Aug 7, 2011
    1
    A game that had a lot of potential. I was liking the story and characters, but the combat, oh my god. This is a game that gives stats based on what you do in battle. If you use lots of magic, you'll gain intellect, that sort of thing. The game also scales to how many battles you've done, meaning if you don't grind out PERFECTLY, you're going to be screwed late game.

    Now, this would be an    A game that had a lot of potential. I was liking the story and characters, but the combat, oh my god. This is a game that gives stats based on what you do in battle. If you use lots of magic, you'll gain intellect, that sort of thing. The game also scales to how many battles you've done, meaning if you don't grind out PERFECTLY, you're going to be screwed late game.

    Now, this would be an incredible gameplay feature, in fact that on paper sounds perfect for making a game not a grindfest, and actually requiring thinking. However, now throw this into the mix: You can't control what your characters do in combat.
    There, the entire gameplay mechanic I explained that the game uses has just been shattered and turned into a complete mess. You control multiple parties instead of just one, and can only direct the party to attack, combat arts, or magic arts. However, using one of those options doesn't guarantee your soldiers will use said arts. Most of them will just use normal attacks, sometimes they'll use combat arts when you choose magic, etc. They've basically scaled the difficulty so the grinding and stat gains you get NEED to be absolutely perfect, if you accidentally use a magic spell or two on a warrior type, you've just made that character worthless as the game progresses. Combined with the fact that you don't control your characters the game feels more like watching a movie based on a bunch of drunk idiots fighting against gods and losing over and over and over.

    This is the first game I've ever played from Square Enix that I have not been able to finish just because of how flat out terrible it was. It pisses me off because the game was mere inches away from being one of the best RPG's of it's time, and all they had to do was give you control over your own characters, something that has been the norm in gaming since...pong.    … Expand
  6. KentL
    Apr 27, 2009
    2
    The Last Remnant is more or less another JRPG, but this time a bad one. You lead a few squads of troops called unions in battle which can max be 5 at the later stage of the game. You give them quite vauge orders like Stand Still or Attack. You as a player are given extremely little control over your unions and you are only given a maximum of 5 options. One is always Attack. The lack of The Last Remnant is more or less another JRPG, but this time a bad one. You lead a few squads of troops called unions in battle which can max be 5 at the later stage of the game. You give them quite vauge orders like Stand Still or Attack. You as a player are given extremely little control over your unions and you are only given a maximum of 5 options. One is always Attack. The lack of options makes the game seem less tactical which is the only reason why anyone would want to play this game. The story is very meager and when it get's interesting you're being left out just because you're not important enough. You're more or less a pawn in this game even through you can control the one who's supposed to be giving you orders (Lord David). You unions have a health pool instead of real individual health pools and when this collective health pool is reduced to zero the whole team is knocked out. Many times you're not allowed to see the battle in a good camera position either and the only good overlay is from the minimap. Your unions should really have individuals who die from their wounds rather than the whole team. That way the team is weakend and you can actually see when things are going badly. But they probably didn't want to mircomanagement. But the game is too tactical not to mircomanage it. Had it been more strategic their macromanagement motto would be excellent but now it's only cutting off options. And their camera solution is completely ruining the strategic dept it could have had. There is no reason at all why one would want to buy this game. Especially since the game mechanics are too unclear and the "tough" fights are unfair but if nothing else - the game is pretty.… Expand
  7. vaell
    Mar 29, 2011
    4
    This is a game that should not have arrived to America, Typical Japanese game, strangely acted, spoken and everything else.

    Only Otaku and blind fans of the old Squaresoft or Enix can possibly like this game. I gave my best to try and like it, but the strange gameplay, strange story, strange "acting" simply puts any western person off. Maybe if i had spent more than the couple of hours    This is a game that should not have arrived to America, Typical Japanese game, strangely acted, spoken and everything else.

    Only Otaku and blind fans of the old Squaresoft or Enix can possibly like this game.

    I gave my best to try and like it, but the strange gameplay, strange story, strange "acting" simply puts any western person off.

    Maybe if i had spent more than the couple of hours i dedicated to it i could have liked it, and that is a big maybe, and no game nor any entertainment should be like that.

    Great graphics and interesting world and characters, but everything else represent what is going wrong with Japanese games specially of late, specially from Square-Enix.    … Expand
  8. NatalieMcK
    Mar 25, 2011
    3
    Last Remnant is not all bad. The battle system itself is somewhat enjoyable, but the rest of the game was horrifying. The dialog is a stilted mess, with the Japanese dub riddled with out-of-place English phrases like "Yes, my lord!", and the English dub is even more painful to listen to. The plot elements are almost uniformly cliche and over-the-top, and the disjointedness with which theyLast Remnant is not all bad. The battle system itself is somewhat enjoyable, but the rest of the game was horrifying. The dialog is a stilted mess, with the Japanese dub riddled with out-of-place English phrases like "Yes, my lord!", and the English dub is even more painful to listen to. The plot elements are almost uniformly cliche and over-the-top, and the disjointedness with which they are presented is absurd, even for a game trying very hard to mimic anime. As a final insult, the game punishes the player for doing well by drastically improving the relative strength of enemies when the player consistently trounces opponents, and the game intentionally obscures this. It's amazing that a company with so much money and talent managed to produce this offal.… Expand
  9. ThecriticGoD
    Mar 15, 2016
    4
    Ok storyline, Ok world, Ok music, Ok characters, but... extremely horrible combat system. This is supposed to be a new generation tactic rpg? now where's the tactic? There's literally no tactic at all in the fights, then what do you have? Extremely long figths where you click 2 buttons and you just wait 20 hours for everything to happen.
  10. kusman
    May 26, 2016
    4
    This game is actually has a lot of potential. it has great music, artstyle, and decent story. for that alone i'll give it 9.
    Sadly the core gameplay is total mess, it lack of control & strategy, therefore combat outcome is HIGHLY dependant on luck. and this game love to punish you for not being lucky. trust me, you'll get to see a lot of undeserved game over screen.

Awards & Rankings

35
#35 Most Discussed PC Game of 2009
13
#13 Most Shared PC Game of 2009

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
66

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 23
  2. Mixed: 15 out of 23
  3. Negative: 2 out of 23
  1. 3DJuegos
    76
    The promising The Last Remnant gets its best on PC thanks to a technical polish that's far better than the Xbox 360 version. Square Enix achieves an occasional enjoyment in its proposal, with an interesting story and a long term fascinating combat system.
    Read full review
  2. Gamers.at
    71
    Why does Square Enix port a mediocre game like Last Remnant and not a hit like Final Fantasy?! Why do I need a Gamepad for perfect control?! We recommend Last Remnant only to those select few J-RPG-Fans, who don't own a console… which should probably be about 10 people worldwide.
    Read full review
  3. GameSpot
    80
    The PC version of this fun and fascinating role-playing game is far superior to its Xbox 360 counterpart.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »