By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pearljammer on 04 January 2009
Edit Thread
LordTheNightKnight said:
pearljammer said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
pearljammer said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
I suspect Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery would get better reviews if they were almost exactly the same but were part of the FF series.

Have you even played either of the two games you mentioned? I'm sure most who have would notice a marked difference in quality when compared to any FF game (for their time).

Although, I'm sure you're right in some cases and that some would actually rate it higher based on the name, most wouldn't, as evidenced by people, reviewers included, having no trouble blasting Mystic Quest when it came out.

User scores also oppose your hypothesis on just about any site you can find.

 

 

I meant to type "main FF series". And neither of those games were advertized as RPGs for beginners, so that is not a proper point for this.

As for Mystic Quest, I find it's not a bad RPG. I actually learned how to play RPGs from that, and even was able to take on Final Fantasy 1 on the NES thanks to that game

It just got bashed by RPG veterans, which makes about as much sense as bike enthusiasts reviewing bikes with training wheels. But then again, that's what the Wii games are getting. The reviews can't wrap their heads around starter games, which is what Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and Mystic Quest all are.

So, have you played either IU or TLR? If not, go by user scores if you'd like, neither compare to any main FF game.

 

User scores can be just as biased by the name. This isn't about playing something. It's about bias to superficial things.

Of course user scores are most definately biased. The point is, what's the point in bitching about something when you will accept nothing as an alternative. I'm not talking about you specifically, just people who complain about reviews in general and admitedly, I read your initial post wrong, I read: If it were released the same game with the FF name, the scores would be the same as most FF games. That's clearly different from what you had said, and now I may actually agree with you in some cases. Secondly, I think it would work both ways as well, for some that is. If a main series FF game were released with as many flaws (mostly technical) as either IU or TRL, they may have acted more harshly as their expectations were greater.

Plus just because you think they don't compare doesn't mean others won't think otherwise.

...Obviously. But I'm talking (as is everyone else in the thread) about a general consensus. Trust me, I'd be among the last people to accept metacritic scores as anything definitive, I hate them. Afterall, I think Disgaea 3 and Fire Emblem: RD are two of the best games this gen and as a teacher, I hate grading students (especially in %'s), saying a student has learned 72% of grade 9 math is absolutely ridiculous. But as much as I hate it, it is necessary to make comparisons as they're a means to make initial judgments.

If a game were rated 94 on metacritic, there's a far greater likelyhood that John Doe would prefer that game over the one rated 62.