| TornadoCreator said:
Gamers like to think they know their games better than anyone, but just like how you can study film at multiple levels, you can study game design in much the same way. There are mechanical issues, ie. does the physics engine work as intended, do the graphics pop-in or tear, are there glitches etc. as well as design issues. Do the characters convey the meaning they're intended to convey, do they express themselves properly? Does the atmosphere achieve the intended reaction? Does the story succeed in transcribing it's narrative? Is it understood and comprehended, felt and considered in the manner intended? These are important questions to ask, and they have right and wrong answers. Objective quality exists. It's why I know that Bioshock is a good game despite personally not enjoying it, I'm bias against it but still able to admit it's quality. It's why I know that TV shows like Primeval are rather mediocre but I enjoy them because it plays to my biases so I'm willing to overlook it's flaws. This is something people seem to have trouble doing, seperating their biases from objective quality. Objectively FFXIII is a bad game; functional and playable sure, but bland and unachieving to a fault with no true artistic value. Personally however, I consider it one of the worst game ever made and would put it along side Ride To Hell, Superman 64, and Big Rigs as games that are utterly worthless. |
This is were I disagree.
Gameplay-wise, XIII is functional. The OST is awesome. The story isn't for everyone, but I ultimately understand everything without the need of the Codex. So if I can, others can too. The story is functional then. Why then, are you saying XIII is a bad game? It manages to get every point right into what you consider "good" game.
Big Rigs: over the road racing is an unfinished product. So it's not a game. That's why it is bad. Having had it all parts finished, would have been a good experience? Probably not: but it would have been a game itself.
Those games you've mentioned: Ride To Hell, Superman 64 and Big Rigs are bad but not because they're bad games, but rather, unfinished products. XIII is NOT an unfinished product, thereby it is not a Bad game, objectively. Objectively, it is a game. The fact that it doesn't achieve artistic value doesn't mean anything. Art can be commercial, lacking soul, but it would still be art nonetheless, as long as it can manifest human culture; which is what art supposedly does.
Call of Duty effectively manifest human culture. XIII does to. It doesn't have to be at it fullest; it doesn't have to be the perfect blend between storytelling, graphics, gameplay and music. But only to demonstrate in one of these areas. Mainstream critics agreed that this is a good game. But even if we disagree'd with it, it is still a functional one. It is a game that works. So far, that's more of a pros than a con.
Why you keep saying that this game is objectively bad confuses me. It is not. It is a full-finished product that, actually, didn't leave content out to be sold for DLC or later created one to artificially extent the length at the cost of more money, like Bioshock - which you're calling a good game - did. It gave people value, value that doesn't necessarily be up to everyone's taste. It wasn't to you, but it was to me.
Final Fantasy XIII is a game. That's it. Not good, nor bad. That's up to subjective debate.
