What is the big deal about white knight chronicles?

[Mirson]

outlawauron said:

Riachu said:

outlawauron said:

Neoraf said:

White Knight Chronicles, review from RPGFan: 70/100

WKC review from Famitsu: 29/40


Well...
This doesn't look AAA like Valkyria Chronicles, Tales of Vesperia and Lost Odyssey.

I can do that too. We both know that JRPGs haven't been given much of a fair shake this generation.

Look! This website gave Lost Odyssey a 5/10! That must mean it sucks, right? No. Not at all.

But the reviewer for the site that reviewed the game admitted on NeoGAF that he didn't know how to play the game properly.

So then you agree with my point that reviews don't matter a whole lot.

@ Mirson

There was a lot I enjoyed about it. Story wasn't fantastic, but I didn't think it was terrible.

I was able to finish Rogue Galaxy but Persona 3 wasn't able to hold my interest.

I don't know what P3 has to do with this unless it's sort of 'retaliation' because I didn't like Rogue Galaxy given the reasons listed above. Many will agree Rogue is Level-5's worst work, and many will agree the story is terrible. A lot of missed opportunities in the character department.

Unlike gamespy, RPGFan dedicate themselves to reviewing RPGs. They are well respected among RPG gamers, and they're one of the few who give JRPGs high scores; I rarely see them give an RPG lower than an 80. The RPGFan contributor who reviewed WKC loves Level-5 (according to his profile), but he gave WKC a 70%. He even acknowledged in the WKC review that Rogue Galaxy's story is terrible, and White Knight is far worse. Not many trust Famitsu anymore.