By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thelalaby on 23 July 2012
Edit Thread
Runa216 said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Runa216 said:

and yet it sucked.  Yes it was less ambitious, I don't see how you could possibly see XIII as ambitious.  They held back the scale of the game by making it linear and doing little in the way of philosophical what-ifs, they simplified the combat system so they could make it flashier at the cost of player control, and yet it still didn't work.  they clearly pumped all their resources into making it look and sound good, becuase the story was horribly told, the characters underdeveloped, and the battle system was horribly flawed.

That's the opposite of ambition.



What you are saying it totally subjective (I'm sorry but it's the same old broken record about linearity etc) and thusly has nothing to do with interpreting ambition.

They invested everything in the story, that was a gamble for sure but also highly ambitious. 

Being a gamble and being ambitious are NOT The same things.  There's nothing more to it than that. You know how everyone complained about Dragon Age II being simpler and more boring in spite of it being more action packed?  same deal.  Making a game simpler but prettier is not ambitious, even if the game series has been known for complexity and depth.  Simply changing course and trying something new does not mean it's ambitious.  yes they wanted lots of sales...but they ALWAYS want lots of sales, there's nothing special or outstanding about XIII aside from its admittedly good (if generic and uninspired) graphics.  It's just a simpler version of something that already exists.  To be ambitious is to strive for something new, to do something outstanding, to stand head and shoulders above others in a bid for wealth and popularity.  

to be ambitious requires action, not simplicity.  


I'm sorry, but this is according to what? Are you saying that in order to be ambitious you have to lean on complex, convulted visions to achieve that?

There certainly is nothing wrong with simplicity... sometimes less is more. It is your personal opinion that the simplicity of the game hurt it, and I know that a lot of people agree with you that XIII wasn't as good as it was expected to be but you have to keep in mind that not everyone will agree with you that the game's "simplicity" was its setback nor did it reflect the lack of ambition or vision on the developers' part, because it is clear that their vision and ambition revolved around telling a tale in a stripped-down format that left the player with nothing but the story and the gameplay without any bells or whistles.

With that said, I do personally find XIII to be deeply flawed even though I love it so much. I'm just trying to say that the so-called "simple" approach was not the game's problem but rather the fact that it could have benefitted from more development time (as crazy as that sounds).