Ben-DutkaFinal Fantasy XIII-2 is averaging a low 8 in terms of review scores but believe it or not, gamers actually expected even lower.
Everyone knows the buzz going into this sequel's launch was mostly negative, due to irate fans who didn't think too highly of FFXIII and weren't interested in an ill-advised follow-up. Therefore, we can understand why so many were hoping for an even worse critical reception. As it stands, however, anything below a 9 remains a disappointment in the eyes of long-time fans, as Final Fantasy has always been considered an elite franchise. Heck, below a 9 was once inconceivable.
This week, the Resident Evil debate continues. After Capcom unveiled the new installment, most noticed that the debut trailer was loaded with a ton of action. Not long after, Capcom went on record saying that it only "made sense" to give the series more in-your-face entertainment, which hasn't gone over well. We're already getting the squad-based shooter, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City , so what does RE6 need more action for? Well, what do you say to this?
Related Game(s): Final Fantasy XIII-2
I like the original RE style but I'm also fine with the more action oriented style.
Probably the only things that bugged me in RE5 was the tank controls, where you couldn't move and shoot and the real time inventory. I'd like to pause the action when changing weapons or looking at my inventory/briefcase.
I never played the earlier RE but I had a jolly good time in RE5 so based on that experience I don't mind where they are heading either. I'm just *so* there for RE6 as long as coop play remains.
But regarding the realtime inventory thing you mention: I believe it was made like that because of the coop mode. Imagine if the game freeze for you each time your buddy opened up his inventory. Some games are actually like that, and that's insanely annoying.
So from that perspective it makes sense that they had it running realtime. Also I liked it cause it created a "fumbling in your pockets while the monsters are on your back" claustrophobic feeling.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/6/2012 2:44:03 AM
It's more strategic if you can't move while firing, you have to time when to shoot and when not to. That's what I liked about the older RE titles.
if you ask me i think they should just ditch the inventory system alltogether. that was my biggest beef with RE5 having to stop get first aid spray and refill my heath ?! what is this 1999 ? seriously all games now have regenerating heath get that in RE6 and that'll get rid of the herbs and first aid spray. that'll just leave your guns and you can just use the d pad for that. that makes it less frustrating. problem solved case closed.
I loved RE5. it was the first game i took the time to platinum.
If they gave me more of RE5, i would definitely love it.
RE4 was good.. but if they gave me… walking down the corridor of a mansion… like 1.. i will be yelling "no"
i loved the trailer. i am 100% pumped up about RE6.
I'm not really a RE fan, barely played 4 and 5. But I'd want something like the "Lost in Nightmare" DLC or the Revelations 3DS demo.
neither were surprising so to be honest ive stopped caring.
japanese developers can do whatever the f*ck they want with there games, i dont care anymore.
no point complaining about it, not even jesus f*cking christ himself could get through their thick skulls!
for once ive just given up.
as said before, Capcom is in the very close second to the SE's derail and the closest follower of SE's westernization crap and is NOT afraid of pissing off fans and losing them.
Resident Evil series, just like FF series, will go further and further from its former self…none of these are any surprises if you follow this "appealing to wider base" logic. But the truth is, mass public's taste are vastly different, trying to put everything in one game in the effort to appeal to everybody is nothing short of suicidal. Rather, let each genre be itself at its best and let the player choose what is the most interesting for them. But I guess none of these can compete with the temptation of profit, after all, all the game company exist first to make money, then to satisfy fans, so whatever seems to sell amass, they will do that, is it not?
Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 2/6/2012 3:21:55 AM
I'm 20 hours into Final Fantasy XIII-2 and I am finding it to be another unigue FF experience. While I think so far I still prefer XIII-1 The game is still really really good and has not dissapointed me at all.
As for RE6, I am lookling forward to it, It seems to have changed the controls to suit the action gameplay mechanics more. But 6 seems to have more of a spooky dark atmosphere than 5 So while it has it's action controls, I don't think it will shy away from horror and suspense like 5 did.
When I was responding to this poll, I was searching for an option along the lines of "I expect low scores, but the game will be great!".
I think some reviewers this gen are being a bit too tough on JRPGs. And, to be honest, nothing beats Final Fantasy as far as JRPGs go this generation. Many will argue about its true-RPG nature, but I mostly disagree.
The game is amazing. Gameplay is definitely better than the first game. The story is lacking, and that is a bit of a big problem for me, but I can bear with it.
Still an amazing experience.
As for RE6, being a huge fan of the main series from the very first RE, the fourth and fifth instalments were a bit disappointing (still fun, though) because it was mostly action, lacking some of the survival/horror elements that made the series unique.
I will still get it, but with lower expectations.
not true
many good JRPG gets low scores as its not made for the main stream gamer
this one is getting good ones as its NOT a JRPG
its not even a RPG its more like pokemon with auto play
i LOVE the .Hack games and they get 7s
a RPG is not a RPG without a story
Last edited by oldmike on 2/6/2012 10:05:06 AM
Opinions differ. To me, XIII is still a RPG (made by Japanese, thus JRPG).
If your only variable in separating what's a RPG and what's not is whether it has a story, then every decent game is a RPG.
Also, if you use .hack as an example, I cannot possibly imagine how someone could think that .hack has a better story than XIII. I would only conclude that either that person has not finished XIII, or didn't pay enough attention to its story.
I'm not saying it's phenomenal by any means, but far more engaging than .hack's, in my opinion (for the record, I did play the .hack games).
I have several variables when considering if a game is a RPG or not:
– Story: Usually has some lore around it, rich world, complex to some degree. FFXIII: Check!
– Character development/customization: While most seemed to say there was close to none, I strongly disagree. The Crystarium is indeed linear, however there are 6 different paths one can take in it (when you unlock all of them), and you can effectively mix them all up in battle. If you put your time into it, you can truly customize your party for various effects.
– Weapons: There is a pretty rich weapon and accessories system in there. Again, it is linear, but these systems in RPGs usually are.
There are dozens of different weapons and accessories in the game to choose from, which you can develop into stronger versions.
– Gameplay: Even if a highly changed version of ATB, XIII is still turn-based. The fact that you can only control your party leader (and if he dies you're over) is a bit of a drawback indeed. However, there is still much strategy in combat.. Even if you use the infamous Auto-Battle option (which is actually pretty useful when fighting difficult enemies). The difference is that instead of other FFs, in which you planned your battles during battle, XIII tries to promote pre-battle preparation.
Making an efficient Paradigm Deck is crucial to success.
Now, people complain about the first 20 hours of linearity.. But I don't really get it. One of the best FFs of all time was extremely linear until the end (I'm talking about X), much like XIII. Towns were also almost not present in X, and people still loved it.
I never really understood these complaints.
Though, I should point out that XIII is by far not my favorite FF.
And regarding your first comment, I think reviewers shouldn't give scores based on whether games are mainstream or not. They should review them for the genre they represent.
The huge problem is that reviewers constantly want innovation, and most JRPGs stick to classic formulas.
Last edited by wolfsinner on 2/6/2012 10:49:14 AM
Correction:
One of the best FFs of all time was extremely linear until the end
Should read:
One of the best FFs of all time was extremely linear until very close to the end
Both .hack series had better stories than FFXIII. As someone who's played them all and seen all the anime episodes, I can tell you it's far more complex. It has an excellent cast of characters, and it oddly enough examines the human condition through online gaming. It's also an incredible commentary on modern networking abilities.
As for them scoring 7's, the gameplay does, admittedly, become pretty repetitive. (Although not as repetitive as hitting Auto-Attack all day) But the story is it's high-note. Most critics felt they had excellent stories. The biggest complaints came from repetitive gameplay or related issues. If it had a bad story, I wouldn't have finished them due to the mediocre gameplay. (Excellent concepts, however. Just not complete, really.)
But the story kept me going. I loved all the characters. I pushed through to completion because the story was incredibly addictive. Not as good as some FF's, perhaps, and not the best on the market. But a million times stronger than FFXIII.
In regards to linear FF's, FFXIII is the only one that limited your freedom to roam. It's the first one where, after you visit an area, you can never go back. (Until the end, but even then, you can't hit up anything pre-chapter 10)
I can only assume the FF you mean is FFX as it had a pretty distinct point A to B feel. But even then, you aren't limited to anything. None of the other FF's are on rails.
@Underdog15
Well, I did play all of the .hack games before the G.U. series.
Admittedly, I also only watched .hack//Sign.
I believe I have enough knowledge of the series to give my opinion on the matter. The story wasn't bad, but a bit juvenile (at its core) and, overall, not that interesting. Again, it's my opinion.
I have no intention of offending your tastes.
Though I must say, I don't know how someone can call it "an incredible commentary on modern networking abilities", but sure.
About the gameplay.. The "all you do is press Auto-Attack" argument is old and very wrong. Maybe in the start you could get away with that (not that long though), but even then, that is not the point of the game.
In a lot of beat 'em ups I can also spam some attack and most of the times win, but that's not the point, is it?
If you play the game wrong, don't complain about its mechanics.
And I can't stress this enough, it is impossible to beat the game only pressing "Auto-Attack". Whoever states that is completely ignorant in the game.
However, I completely accept that some people don't like the paradigm shift mechanics. It's just that one argument that is completely stupid.
But anyway, that wasn't even the major point of my post. It's definitely a matter of opinion and I absolutely am in no right to tell you that you're wrong in liking something. And neither are you. Tastes are tastes.
And yes, I was talking about X (I did specify by the way). Actually XIII and X are extremely similar in many ways (as far as exploration goes). I'll admit that X gave you a slightly bigger sense of freedom, but definitely not enough to stop me from comparing them.
And yes, the fact that you can't go anywhere pre-chapter 10 is limiting and a problem with XIII. Didn't bug me particularly though, considering there wasn't much exploring to do in those areas anyway.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that the gameplay is one of the things that I most liked in the .hack series.
Last edited by wolfsinner on 2/6/2012 3:57:01 PM
mmm… I platinum'd FFXIII. Not sure I'd classify that as "ignorant". The argument is tired and old, true. But it's 99% accurate.
Save only an exception of 2 optional battles, all you had to do was auto-attack. In fact, for the main story, that's literally all you needed to do. An occasional paradigm shift? Hardly difficult to know when to make a shift.
I 5 star'd the boss battle first try. (Which can be proven just by looking at the date and time the trophy for 5 staring the last battle as well as the trophy for finishing the last chapter) It wasn't hard at all. And since you're limited on how much you can level up before you beat it the first time, I wasn't exactly over-powered. I could have done it with my eyes closed. Literally. In fact, I bet'cha I could go home tonight and do just that.
The weapon's upgrade system was definitely anything but deep… 6 weapons per character… and any one of them can be leveled up to the "Ultimate weapon"…. I platinum'd the game. I would know.
For not playing the GU series or seeing Roots, I'm not sure you can try to insult my opinion on networking commentary.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/7/2012 9:15:13 AM
For the record, I also platinum'd FFXIII, so don't act all high and mighty.
It is not 99% accurate at all. Actually, it's far from that. If you state that, then you're just fooling yourself to win an argument. Period.
Auto-attack was indeed strongly used because the emphasis in the battle system was in the Paradigm Shifting, which you really did have to use extensively, no matter how good you are. If you state otherwise, then this conversation ends now, because you're just being unrealistic.
And the final-final boss was a joke, anyone with minimal strategic skill could've 5-stared it at first try.
And about the weapons, yes I know that there were only 6 weapons per character. But these are starting weapons, which could then evolve into different ones, all of them resulting in the seemingly same character Ultimate Weapon. What you failed to say is that these Ultimate Weapons are not the same. Their stats depend on what weapon it evolved from. So an Axis Blade-evolved Omega Weapon will not have the same stats and "perks" as a Lionheart-evolved one.
And about it being an "incredible networking commentary".
Alright, I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.
But let me make it clear that I didn't try to insult your opinion. I have a right to skepticism. If you take that as an insult, then it's your problem.
Last edited by wolfsinner on 2/7/2012 1:38:27 PM
mmm… well, I think it's clear I am quite high and also mighty.
win = me.
woot!
(in other words, relax)
I'm not sure how to argue with you when you didn't really disagree with anything I said other than the weapons thing and that you felt FFXIII challenged your strategic abilities. That's fine and dandy, but I had no struggles at all. Admittedly, I did die once against the final Ci'eth stone, (but only the leader… *rolls eyes @ that problem with the game) but that was easily remedied by ensuring I had the passive ability of Tortoise enabled. That was the only change I needed to make….
It's pretty accepted by critics that the battle system in XIII is simplistic in relation to the rest of the series.
All you feel is subjective, whereas I at least have an objective measurable of professional critics, on average, agreeing with my point of view. 10 points lower than your average FF isn't something to brush aside simply because you enjoy a game.
If you think FFXIII requires any degree of strategic thought, that's fine. But we're going to disagree on this, plain and simple.
For the record, I never said it was a bad game either. I did a user review on this site back in the day, and I think I gave it a fair commentary. I actually got the Staff Choice Award for writing it. So it must not be terrible.
The original point for me didn't even really have much to do with the gameplay, anyways. I merely said the story wasn't great. And the high and mighty thing was kinda funny (the eye rolling variety of humor) because I mentioned it in lieu of you saying my outlook on the game was "ignorant".
Go check out my user review back when it came out. It got an award from this site during an event. I think it's perfectly fair and it very accurately describes my opinion of it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/7/2012 3:22:57 PM
Here's a link:
https://temp.psxextreme.com/user-reviews/30.html
Mmm… Man, all I want to do is laugh at your post. I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe I don't get my point across that well, but I don't think you understood what you read.
And, by the way, I'm relaxed. Don't know where that came from.
Where to start?
1 – Yes, I did disagree with you in a lot of ways. Perhaps you should read my post again? I won't be writing it a second time.
2 – I never said it challenged my strategic abilities. Difficulty wasn't even brought up until now. I'm not sure where that came from either.
3 – I'm being completely objective as well. You, on the other hand, aren't. If you go read, or watch, the reviews again, you'll see that most critics didn't whine about the "All I do is press Auto-Attack, herp derp" factor. Simply because it isn't there.
4 – I find it funny that you're trying to pass off as cool with the conversation, yet you feel an inexplicable need to reference certain achievements you made to give you some credibility.
Achievements based on subjectivity and, quite honestly, not that significant.
Finally, I won't bother reading the user review for a simple reason: it would serve no purpose in this conversation.
"Finally, I won't bother reading the user review for a simple reason: it would serve no purpose in this conversation."
Well, I'm not sure about not serving the purpose of this conversation, but it certainly wouldn't serve your purpose.
I find it disappointing you are so unfamiliar with the regular gripes critics have had with the auto-attack feature. It seems to me that the major difference between me and you in this comes down to straight up experience. Although we've both platinum'd FFXIII, you're the only one of us that feels the battle system wasn't overly simplistic. (Arguing over whether or not you thought it was difficult is arguing semantics) You haven't touched the GU series, yet you speak as if you know about El Salvadore and the offline reports that refer so much to modern social networking. Additionally, you clearly haven't read most reviews out there. If I have another no-show, I'll look some up for you.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/7/2012 6:24:26 PM
RPG Gamer
The combat system is completely stripped of the depth is shows later on, and battles aren't even won by spamming "Attack" as in other series entries — they're won by spamming "Auto-Battle!"
Destructoid
The game constantly gives off a sense that it's having way more fun with itself than the player, and that theme is continued in the brand new battle system. Battles ostensibly play themselves for you
Eurogamer
You don't get direct control of more than one character at a time and input, if you want to, can be automated to the extent that it's more like tapping out morse code on the action button than selecting from menus
IGN
although an auto-battle option puts the game on auto-pilot if so desired.
PSXE
Square-Enix obviously wanted to keep that depth but in order to appease those who have to constantly press buttons throughout a battle, they were forced to automate most of it.
1up:
Traditional towns are too difficult to manage in light of the demands of current technology and art design? Whack — they're gone. Free-roaming exploration too difficult to implement properly? Chop — there goes the nonlinearity. Micromanaging turn-based combat bogs down the pacing of battles? Snip — let the AI handle it.
See…. whether you like or hate it, critics seem to notice the lack of depth. True, some reviewers find other redeeming traits about the game, but you can't pretend the lack of depth in the battle system isn't there.
These are just some of the more major sites I could think of. I could probably find more if you like.
And finally, I think I've proved you wrong when you said,
"If you go read, or watch, the reviews again, you'll see that most critics didn't whine about the "All I do is press Auto-Attack, herp derp" factor. Simply because it isn't there."
Well…. *snicker* it quite obviously is everywhere. Even the sites and mags that gave it a 9.5 or 10/10 made allusions to it saying that some fans won't like it, and it does feel like a layer of depth isn't there, but they feel it works for the better. But the point is, even the perfect scores point it out. (I have my Official PS mag in front of me. I can take a screen shot and highlight the spot that says it and post in the forums if you want. They gave it a perfect 10… and STILL commented on it.)
I have no issues with you until you made the same snide comments you vowed you would never stoop to. I do not speak about issues I feel particularly unknowledgeable about. In the future, I would advise you to think twice before challenging me. Disagree if you will, and state your reasons for it. That's fine.
But you started my little blood-lust the moment you said, "anyone who says that is ignorant" or that my argument is "stupid". You are the one that began the stone hurling. Prior to that comment, there isn't one single lick of anything I said that was insulting.
Finally, if you felt the need to laugh at my post, it's probably because, as a non-native English speaker, you find my accent amusing or because my wit, knowledge, and prowess with the keystroke leaves you a little bit nervous. Because aside from that… you and your insults just got owned.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/7/2012 6:50:11 PM
(Sorry for the ridiculously long post. I've got nothing better to do.)
Sneaky, sneaky.
First, let's analyse those reviews.
RPGamer – You purposely hid the most important part of that segment. That part actually reads:
"This is made worse by the fact that the gameplay for the first few hours is pathetic. The combat system is completely stripped of the depth it shows later on […]"
Destructoid review – First of all, Destructoid is plain awful. And the review was written by a notoriously even worse journalist: Jim Sterling. I mean, he gave the game a 4/10. How can you give him any credibility?
Eurogamer review – That is hardly a complaint. He's just stating a fact, which I won't deny. You can indeed automate the attacks. But in no way is that negative criticism.
Actually, a bit below you can read:
"The excellent battle system is designed for a trio and needs three to really sing, but opportunities to experience that before the magic halfway mark are scarce."
"[…] When Final Fantasy XIII is at its best – when the simple tactical brilliance and snappy, intoxicating pace of the battle system asserts itself […]"
IGN review – Again, how is that a complaint? They're simply acknowledging the option's existence. The whole segment actually reads:
"It makes for fast-paced encounters whereby correctly inputting the optimum moves can be as challenging as selecting the right strategy, although an auto-battle option puts the game on auto-pilot if so desired."
PSXE Review – Ben's simply acknowledging that XIII is ridiculously fast-paced, so a lot of it was automated. Ok, I know Ben's posts. I know he doesn't like it. But from an objective point of view, it's not negative criticism. By the end you can read:
"It all just works so, so, so well."
1UP Review – Again, acknowledging the option's existence. You can verify this fact by reading further:
"On paper, these cuts make FFXIII sound awful […] It's unquestionably a huge departure for the series, but taken on its own merits, it works."
"
"The battle system, admittedly, starts slow; […] Stick with it long enough (…) and you'll find FFXIII's combat is dizzying, tactical, and challenging."
If you want more. Even yesterday, I was watching GameSpot's show "The HotSpot" and both of the reviewers were praising XIII's battle system.
Now you're probably thinking "So?".
Well, as you can see, none of them actually stated that Auto-attack removed strategy from the game. Actually most of them praised the game's battle system's depth.
If you're just looking for places where people acknowledge that the option does exist, then duh! I know it exists. But my point wasn't that. My point was if whether its existence destroyed all sense of strategy from the game.
As I believe I made clear, reviewers do not seem to think it does.
Now, moving on to your personal attacks. I'll even quote you:
"It seems to me that the major difference between me and you in this comes down to straight up experience. Although we've both platinum'd FFXIII, you're the only one of us that feels the battle system wasn't overly simplistic."
I don't understand exactly how this comes down to experience. Again, here you go praising yourself.. You must really adore yourself.
I never said the battle system is or isn't simplistic. But yes, I don't think it is.
"You haven't touched the GU series, yet you speak as if you know about El Salvadore and the offline reports that refer so much to modern social networking."
I think it's safe to say that reading actual research papers on networking will provide much more "incredible" insight into networking abilities than the .hack series. I guess we have different standards on "incredible".
"And finally, I think I've proved you wrong when you said, […]"
Definitely not. I'm pretty sure I made myself clear this time.
"In the future, I would advise you to think twice before challenging me. […] But you started my little blood-lust the moment you said, "anyone who says that is ignorant" or that my argument is "stupid". You are the one that began the stone hurling. Prior to that comment, there isn't one single lick of anything I said that was insulting."
I don't know what to say. HAHAHAHA. Man, those paragraphs were hilarious. You told me to relax, yet you speak to me like we're in a duel of some kind.
I didn't challenge you man, I simply stated my opinion and some facts.
And yes, it is an ignorant argument, sorry. When someone states something that isn't true and still defends it with their lives, I regard it as immature and ignorant.
You aren't paying attention to me.
I pointed out that even the sites that -like- the new battle system, still pointed out it's simplicity and the fact that traditional fans may not be up for it.
I never once said they all hated it. I said they all commented on it and noticed it's lack of depth. Many people loved it, sure (which I said). But you said no one… anywhere… in any review… talked about the lack of depth. I merely pointed out that they did.
My point was not to leave important points out or anything. My point was to, as opposed to what you claim, show that reviewers definitely noticed the simplicity of "auto-battle… derp" as you put it. Some felt there was enough prior to battle to make them happy, but they constantly commented on the fact the battles often happened on their own. You yourself said earlier the work goes into the prep and less so in the battle. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
I'm not even sure what exactly it is you're trying to prove.
I'm still unconvinced FFXIII has a stronger story than .hack, and I still find nothing out there to suggest I'm wrong in acknowledging FFXIII's battle system is simplistic.
And yes… you still need to relax… It is quite clear English is not your native language. This much is true. That's one point we can both agree on as can be seen in your reading and comprehension skills. I'm sure in your own right you're quite intelligent, but you can't even seem to stay on track here.
You haven't even had the guile to acknowledge any points I have. Instead you pick at the sub-headings of my point.
You were wrong about reviewers not commenting on the auto-battle. You are wrong about .hack (as you haven't even played GU). You were wrong when you said I was leaving things out of the articles because you were wrong about the point I was trying to make. You were in the wrong when you called me stupid and an idiot (which started this, by the way). You were wrong when you said I was ignorant about FFXIII. And you were wrong to try and argue without reviewing the whole of my arguments. (You outright refused to read my user review. And by the way… achievements do give people certain credentials worth accounting for, contrary to your earlier comment. It's sort of how the world works.)
But you know what? You're obviously quite passionate about FFXIII, so I'll give you props there. It's unfortunate you still haven't acknowledged the fact I thought it was a good game as well, and it's unfortunate you seem to think I only view things negatively, as I've provided you with many examples about the things I think should be praised in FFXIII. (But you wouldn't know… you didn't look at the review.)
So tell you what. I think it's awesome that people can get passionate about games, so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. Chances are, any negativity between us was fostered out of misunderstanding. And for contributing to that and offending you, I apologize. I said a few things that can be hurtful, and I shouldn't have overstepped that boundary.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/8/2012 12:06:38 PM
Ok, hopefully this discussion will end soon, but let's go over your post.
First of all, since you were the one counter-arguing, you were the one that had to understand exactly what I was saying. I'm pretty sure you didn't.
I never said that "no one… anywhere.. in any review… talked about the lack of depth".
What I said was that no reviewer said "ALL I DO IS PRESS Auto-Attack". I capitalized it so that, hopefully, you will understand that what I was defending was that no – decent – reviewers said that it COMPLETELY removed strategy from the battle system.
Obviously, the battle system is more simplistic than previous FFs, I never said it wasn't. But Auto-Attack was necessary because the emphasis was in Paradigm Shifting.. Strategy is in the Paradigm System. Strategy is there, and it has depth. Most reviewers acknowledge its depth.
If you agree with me here, then we've been arguing in circles.
English may not be my native language, but I'm forced to use it in my field extensively (I've written several research papers and presented them in several events, all in English). I have also read an enormous amount of research in English. As a result, I'm pretty sure I know what I read when I read it.
If someone is having problems understanding the other, that person is you. Whether that is a consequence of my writing skills or not, we'll never know.
"You were in the wrong when you called me stupid and an idiot (which started this, by the way). You were wrong when you said I was ignorant about FFXIII."
Now, I would like to focus on this a bit.
First of all, I never called you stupid, idiot or ignorant.
I said the argument "HERP DERP IT SUCKS CUZ ALL I DO IS PRESS X DURING THE BATTLE'S ENTIRETY" is ignorant and stupid (I never used idiot).
Now, when I said this, I wasn't talking about you.
The truth is that I've read this argument too many times now, and knowing that it is completely false, I find it ignorant and stupid.
If someone starts defending that argument with their lives, even after being proven wrong, I consider the argument ignorant and the person immature.
Considering this argument tree, I would only have to assume that you didn't understand exactly what I was defending.
"You outright refused to read my user review."
The only reason why I "refused" to read your review, was because I was sure it wouldn't bring anything new to the table. I understand that you liked XIII. No one, in their rightful mind, platinums a game without enjoying it. All I needed to know, related to the discussion, had already been said by you.
"And by the way… achievements do give people certain credentials worth accounting for, contrary to your earlier comment. It's sort of how the world works."
Yes, achievements do matter. But there are achievements that don't matter at all in the real world. Things like PS3 trophies, and user review awards are among them.
I've earned several important achievements in my life in my field, but I don't feel any need to bring them up in a discussion.
Finally, as I've said, I've known from the beginning that you like XIII. And I really do know it isn't the perfect game. I just don't agree with claims saying it has no depth, that's subjective. What's not subjective is the "only press auto-attack during a battle" argument for the entirety of the game.
If I offended you in any way, I'm sorry. During most of the conversation, I never had that intention (except maybe for a couple of lines in my latter comments).
I voted that the 8's are about right. They make sense, and the only reviewers that didn't read like they were really viewing things objectively were the 9+ scores and the couple of 6's. Plus 8 was what I was expecting to begin with… basically, "A great game, but still a full point below your typical FF entry". And I think that's fair.
Some people argue that within it's own right it should be a 9 but the FF title makes it lower due to bias and predisposition to what it should be. But you know what? You have more than a dozen prior FF games, almost all of which have scored 89-93. To me, that's enough history to set a standard. And if a new FF title doesn't live up to the standard of past FF's, how can it objectively score the same as past FF's?
You can call it bias, I suppose, but it makes perfect sense that an entry in a series that is not as good as the rest of the series should be scored lower than the rest of the series. It's sort of a simple A+B=C type of thing.
I also recognize some people have preferences and prefer XIII, but those are only preferences and not objective measurables. Some people prefer the more simplistic, hand-holding battle style of the original XIII, for example. But I think most critics agree that the freedom and complexity of past FF's are much better designed. Combined with other objective failures from the original and a lackluster story in the sequel, they just haven't been able to combine excellent story with excellent gameplay. It's seems to be one or the other.
For those reasons, an 8 is completely justified, imo.
As for RE6, I don't really care, so I didn't vote.
I'm on the fence about RE6. The amount of action isn't going to make it or break it for me, I'm more concerned with the characters, story, atmosphere and gameplay. Oh it'll probably suck, the trailer I saw looked like MW3 or something, but I'll hold off passing judgment until it comes out.