By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
brendude13 on 05 January 2014
Edit Thread
Runa216 said:
brendude13 said:
Runa216 said:
brendude13 said:

Oh wow, we've never heard this before.

Final Fantasy VI is an objectively bad game.

Care to back up your statements with facts or at least palpable arguments?  I'd love to hear how FFVI is in any way bad.  Great characters, the best FF Villain, one of the best game soundtracks ever, Half linear, half completely nonlinear, two complete, unique worlds, a super large cast, tonnes of side quests and backstory for almost every character, a simple but immensely fun magic and esper system, gameplay that included gamer input (Sabin's blitz's, Setzer's slots, being the best examples), gameplay that went out of its way to not JUST be boring RPG crap, like steal missions, concurrent plot lines, divergent control, multiple parties.  

Yeah.  No.  IT was not objectively a bad game.  Nice lame attempt to troll.  

I honestly don't like it.

Bland world with repetitive towns and locations, poorly designed characters with very little development, Kefka is an annoying and cliche villain ripped straight out of a pantomime, the soundtrack is somewhat irritating and the overall story and narrative is so weak that you're often left wondering what you're supposed to do next.

Objectively a poor game, end of story.

but none of that is 'objective' analysis.  You find it bland?  Sure, but it isn't.  It's incredibly deep.  The towns and locations are actually quite varied, so you're wrong there.  The characters have some of the best development of any game, let alone any FF game, so again you're plain wrong there.  Kefka can be annoying, I'll give you that, but he's also one of the most maniacal, devious, effective villains in all of gaming.  The soundtrack was fantastic, though music can be subjective so I'll leave that point alone.  The narrative was not weak, and even as a kid I never, ever had any problem knowing what to do next. 

Subjectively not a game you like, sure, but not objectively bad.  

Talking about a broken, restrictive combat system, linear narration, and an un-engaging story that barely includes the player at all?  That's objecively a poor game.  If I Wanted to read an encyclopedia, I'd go to the library.  

I'm not saying I find it bland, I'm TELLING you it's bland. How is it not an objective analysis, yet yours is? How can I be wrong when I'm right?

@ Bolded: Wa-hey, we're getting somewhere...Kinda.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/final-fantasy-xiii

Surely reviewers are meant to review games objectively? Did Square Enix pay-off all 82 reviewers (ignoring the single reviewer that gave the game a negative review) or something?