| jack100 said: @Marteds - At least FF14 GOT a 49......that game was UNPLAYABLE....it shoud have gotten a ZERO, lol. THe Square Enix name gave them a 49....that's an insult. If Mistwalker made an unplayable game like that, people would have given them a well deserved ZERo, the actual review of FF14 at launch. Also 8.5 is some random high number I'm using. @Dodece - Well said. I wasn't thinking like that. I just want people to know that there is another way....the MISTWALKER way, lol. I guess if smart people buy JRPG eventually Mistwalker's quality will shine unlike SquareEnix crap, lol. @ishiki - lol, like I said above 8.5 was a random high number. Also like I said above giving FF14 a ranking of 49 for unplayable game.....seriously. Also SO is a tri-ace game published by SquareEnix. I'm saying Mistwalker type ratings cause that's true....they are 'pre internet popularity' but they had Mistwalker level rating. It's only when they got popular they started getting higher ratings.....like the 49 for FF14 *roll eyes* |
have you played FFXIV? because it wasn't even unplayable in the beta, just incredibly boring with its bad interface, boring combat and quests.. You could say that it gets points for Music, Arstyle and graphics... the games that typically score less than that don't have those perks. (I gave it a 3.5 btw but this was beta) however reviews are generally inflated overall and don't use the whole scale.
why are Monolith, and Atlus able to outperform mistwalker then with no "Creator of Final Fantasy on the cover" Are you saying that having Sakaguchi and Uematsu related to the game doesn't inflate the score as well?
By all the things you're using as criteria, you'd say atlus and monolith are better than mistwalker, and SE should sell them licenses to them instead of keeping them or selling them to mistwalker. So why are you arguing for mistwalker?
