I haven't played the first, but I'll probably pick it up soon since it's so cheap now. I'm willing to look past a game's flaws (to an extent) if it's got good ideas, and that's kind of the feeling I got about Red Steel 1 from reviews and people I know. Good idea, rushed and done poorly. If the second one actually takes the time to do it right, then it could be a decent game (though another FPS...)

Snesboy- the controls in MOHH2 are near flawless. They are better than any dual analog setup out there, and really could rival PC control. Their fluent, no camera issues, turning is fine, and accuracy is 1:1, meaning your only as good as your own body. It's great, and it would be even more amazing if someone could top it.

^Not according to Game Informer. But then again I haven't liked their reviews of Wii games ever since they game Metroid an 8.75 for having just one world.

I have MoHH2 and been playing it all day and I can say with perfect certainty that GI is completely wrong. I think the magazine is full of X-bots and should be viewd as such. Unbiased reviews my ass.

Yep well said, if the game is good even like an 8.5 i expect it to move 1M units since there are really only like 5 real first person shooters on the Wii.

MoH:H 2 is fantastic.

I personally hope that they spend the most time on the swordfighting mechanics, rather than doing away with them. Come on, people, who did not picture epic swordfights when they first heard of the Wii? If you played the first Red Steel, you probably got discouraged, and no one else has really tried it, but there is hope:

In Warioware: Smooth Moves, one of the 'boss' microgames has you holding a sword, moving it to block incoming attacks, and then going in for the kill. It's highly guided, sure, and you can't move around or attack whenever you want to, but it feels great, and considering that it's one of 200 minigames, it's clear the potential is there.

Also, to those who say we shouldn't have high hopes for Red Steel 2 because the first wasn't great, I say "I guess Killzone 2 will be crap, then." What I'm saying is, it's a ridiculous argument.

Ubi has stated that they're going for a 'Nintendo-like quality' with their games and, given the awesomeness of most of their console games, I have every belief in them.

I just started playing MoHH2 today. I put all of the sensitivity settings to the max and shrunk the dead zone to the smallest setting. It is the best controlling FPS on a console to date. All developers would be wise to copy the control options. I will be comparing every future Wii FPS to this game.

Red Steel 2 has some big shoes to fill. Every FPS that has come out since Red Steel has made its controls look like a joke. I did enjoy the first game, though. It wasn't as "unplayable" as many reviews would have you believe. I will definitely buy the sequel no matter what the reviewers say.

Why? The first one isn't even that good. Same with that stupid Cooking Mama game, and Killzone. Why sequels? Why the hype? Time will simply repeat itself...

In videogames it's a common rule for most franchises that sequels are better than it's predecessor. Especially when it's concerning FPS. A few examples:

Halo3>Halo2>Halo1

Quake3>Quake2>Quake1 

GT4>GT3>GT2>GT1

Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire>>>Pokemon Diamond/Crystal etc.... 

the rule even applies to Mario Party. But the sequels never got a higher score because of sequelitis.

Red Steel 1 was obviously in time constraint and didn't get the flaws out in time for release. The concept was there for a AAA game, just a failed execution. It's not that Ubisoft is a crappy developper, it was purely time constraint. They listened to the feedback of part 1. I'm pretty sure they get it right this time. I expect this to score much higher than the first part.

I thought Red Steel was good but not great. It was clearly rushed for the Wii launch, but at least it had local multi player. I think the sequel could be sweet with online and controls as good as Metroid. Just fix the sword game play or take it out, that was the worst part of the game.