Xxain said:
Kasz216 said:
dunno001 said:
Hrm... I'll buck the trend: 3.5/10. Why?
Coming off of the SNES games, there was a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, this game failed on most of the aspects. FF7 really has only 1 memorable scene (Aeris/Aerith's death), the game was painfully easy, the feeling of exploration was lost (too much linearity, but not as bad as 10 or 13), and while the game was designed to look pretty at the time, it did not age well at all in that department. I liked how mini-games started to come into play, but I was annoyed at having to do them to continue the plot.
Looking at the game's mechanics, it went down to a 3-person party max, the lowest in any FF at date. (FF3 had 3 main characters and a frequent guest character.) The materia system was interesting, but led to being broken too easily. A character can cast Phoenix on death? MP absorb on magic giving you nearly infinite magic? And this also leads to the money problem. I did not care for the concept of an "all" materia. But these things were plentiful enough that when you master one, selling it isn't a problem... for 1.4 million gil. That should have you set for money for the rest of the game!
Finally, we have what I consider the biggest detractor, and a sign of where the series was going: the summons. The action time in 4 was sufficient for their use, but a summon in this game ensures that everyone's action bar will be full before the summon is even near done. And then you have the longer ones, in which, no exaggeration, I was able to make myself a melted cheese sandwich and eat it before it finished! It was a "look how pretty we can make things" event. And one that, in my eyes, led the series to almost irreparable doom; I've already cast vanish on it from my view... |
Yeah, but I mean... compared to other Non-FF Jrpgs it's not that bad. You've got some great non-FF RPGs like Persona, Earthbound etc...
However there is also a lot of trash and dang near unplayable JRPGs out there... well like FF2. Or those first person NES RPGs where you need a map just to get around freakin town.
If feels unfair to take points off a game poorly just because other games with the same name were so much better. I mean it's going to score lower regardless for being a worse game.
|
how? If a game cannot surpass its predecessor, it does deserve a higher score. |
What I'm saying is.
Say you give Big Awesome Adventure 2 a 10.
Then two games are released at the same time. Big Awesome Adventure 3 and Awesome Huge Adventure.
Awesome Huge Adventure Scores a 7.
Big Awesome Adventure 3 is just as good as AHA. However it's a HUGE letdown to BAA2.
To me BAA3 deserves a 7 out of 10. It seems unfair to rate it lower then AHA just because of the expectations placed on it for being a sequel to BAA2.
For being a letdown you may be tempted to give it a 6/10 or even 5/10 but it feels unfair since then you aren't so much grading the game within the context of the Genre, but instead grading it within the context of the series.
