FAMITSU SCORES FINAL FANTASY XIII

post=113025

post=113022
I liked Modern Warfare 1 actually, Modern Warfare 2 wasn't *TOO* bad on it's own per-se; but when compared to Modern Warfare 1 - it's ridiculous. No more lean, watered down multiplayer, and even SHORTER campaign for 10 dollars more and paid DLC? GAME OF THE YEAR.

Borderlands passed itself off as a multiplayer online RPG FPS; but the game itself seemed to NOT want people to play together. If you can get through all of the port forwarding garbage you're left with a game that doesn't promote team play. An online game that doesn't even allow you to fight bosses after you've "beaten" the game twice. Character trees were flimsy and uninspired, the characters themselves had the personality of a urine covered brick, but the humor itself was pretty memorable... If you're seven years of age.

These people have been felated enough. The positives of each game have already been blown way out of proportion.

post=113027
Well, yeah (assuming you intended to quote me instead of yourself), it does get irritating to hear people sing praises of games like they're the most perfect shit ever, but honestly, doing it right back but opposite doesn't help either. A frank discussion between fans of what they liked and what they didn't like about the game does more for gamers, developers, and the expectations of both than blown up hyperbole and exaggeration by both sides.

Except in many cases, it isn't hyperbole.

There's probably a more elegant way to say how poor it is for a company to charge more for less, and than have the nerve to charge even more afterwards in the form of DLC. I prefer to call it "shit". Because that's what it is - Shit.

Firstly, I don't listen to reviews of games I know I am going to be experiencing for myself. Second, I only pay attention to the portion of reviews that cover game mechanics. I want them to explain to me how the gameplay works. I'll watch some videos, see how the game flows. Then I'll make a decision (for games I don't really know much about).

Basically, anything with a metacritic score of 70 or greater is fair game for me because this is usually enough to clear the game of any major mechanical flaws. To me, 70 or greater means the game is playable to completion.

So, when it finally comes down to forming an opinion about a game, I try not to look at games as art, which I think breeds the more "cynical" and strict opinions we and other gamers form. Yeah, we're hardcore about games and like to believe that we have discriminating tastes in them. My opinion is that a game's quality has less to do with how well it's marketed, how much time was spent on cinematics, whether it's over or under-produced, anything like that.

All following references to Square Enix and Final Fantasy is used for example.

FF7 was great when it came out, but I was disappointed by how boxy and fake the world models looked. FF8's draw system was tedious and battles just seemed to take too long. FF9 was the point when I felt, ok, enough is enough with the summons, they are getting way too over-the-top. FF10 was the point I felt that Nomura's designs were getting way too over-the-top. FF11....yeah (I loved it, I played it for a long time, but...yeah). FF12's story was so disjointed you could almost literally see the rift in the development process, and the point where one story writer or event planner threw up his hands and caved.

Guess what? These are all great games. I haven't played a Final Fantasy game I haven't enjoyed. THAT is what qualifies the next game in the series as an immediate purchase. I haven't agreed with all of Square Enix's design choices. Hardcore fans attack new games when they do something new. Hardcore gamers attack new games when they aren't new enough.

People aren't wrong or stupid for being critical. What would be wrong or stupid would be to say that Square Enix doesn't know how to make good games (the flagship stuff that they dedicate the most resources to). They're not stupid, either. They know damn well they got where they are now for delivering solid gameplay experiences. The resources this success has garnered them, they wisely devoted to making sure these games continue to sell with amazing graphics, crazy stories, over-production, boobs, everything.

There was a lot of hoopla about MW2. Is it shady and in poor taste that Infinity Ward decided not to provide CoD fans with things that they previously did? Sure. Either they spent too much money on this stuff before, or they couldn't get a solid product with all of this stuff in time for Christmas. Suffice it to say, MW2 is no less of an impressive product as the first installment, however the reduced multiplayer capability is unfortunately a gameplay-related issue, and it hurts.

The list goes on with all hyped games. Borderlands? Not everyone's cup of tea. It held my interest for quite a while, though, and is a solid gameplay experience.

These are all good games. Do hardcore gamers really only want to play great, excellent, or PERFECT games? I say, nothing better than a good game is necessary, just never hurts, and I will always welcome the added depth and more memorable experience.

post=113039

FF8's draw system was tedious and battles just seemed to take too long.

you're not doing it right ;)

Making a point, but it was hard to find something more concrete ;) What can I say, some people didn't like the sissified story, but it was a really good game!

Note: I just wanted you all to know that the reply box formally recognizes the word "sissified" and did not underline it.

post=113053
yeah idk why it gets slammed (i do know it's because people crave their precious formula)

a simple story that works is better than a car crash in all cases

rebuttal: orphanage plot twist

I've never heard anyone criticize FF8's plot for being too simple. However I have heard it criticized for many other reasons.

How is it "no less of an impressive product than its predecessor" whilst gutting so many features, nearly halving the duration of the already tiny and linear single player campaign, and watering down the multiplayer? Usually sequels are supposed to be a step forward, not backwards.

MODERN WARFARE 2 IS THE WORST GAME OF ALL TIME IT WAS ABSOLUTE SHIT I CAN'T SEE HOW ANYONE ENJOYED IT I'D RATHER EAT DIRT THAN PLAY ONE SECOND OF THAT GAME

Yes, yes ok. Here; have an oatmeal cookie.

post=113063
fffff

people have preconceptions of that as some kind of OH MY GOD SHOCKING PLOT TWIST but it isn't presented as that at all. just a little sideplot about predestination

It just robs the characters of their individuality. They're all the same age, come from the same place, have the same background, and have the same occupation. Not to mention that throughout the game, the characters themselves are pretty boring and interchangeable. Really, the whole game should have just been about Laguna and co.

Sorry I'm late but here is that 'reviews can be trash' image:


Anyways I'll be getting this at some point and it'll be a decent game that I'll probably beat after a year or two unless some part of it actually turns out to be interesting. It'll be like Vesperia, except instead of Smokin' Dog it'll be lesbike or whatever

The only Final Fantasys I could not stop playing were 8 and 9. Any argument over how bad they were I ignore because I had a lot of friggin fun with them.

:<

EDIT: I just read S. F. LaValle's post. What he said.

post=113079
I didn't like VIII because of it's badly done gameplay mechanics. Junctioning is a shit way to advance a player as drawing magic is really tedious. Yet it's the only way to do it without little draw points.

Actually, no: Refining cards is not only the most efficient way to get magic, it's also pretty much the ONLY way to get as powerful as you possibly could.