| darkknightkryta said: That fellow with the Link avatar explained it well. You can objectively say if a game mechanic is bad depending on it affects the game. Like in NHL 94, every wrap around was a goal. That is objectively a bad game mechanic because it made the game way to easy and boring. You can say the same here with the combat and overall game design. Combat is too easy and becomes monotonous for 90% of the main game campaign; which is unfortunately 40 hours. This is due to the way the game caps your progress, prevents you from taking control of other characters, gives you no breaks, and has a low level ceiling of difficulty. That's objective. |
Combat is easy (despite difficultness being something also subjective, but I'm going to give you this one) -> objective. =/= bad game.
Not liking that the combat is easy and thus becoming monotonous for 90% of the game -> your own personal experience with the combat = subjective. = bad game.
Prevent you from taking control of other characters -> objective =/= bad game.
Not liking that you can take control of other characters -> subjective. = bad game.
Giving you no breaks -> objective =/= bad game.
Not liking that you don't have breaks -> subjective = bad game.
You can objectively explain a mechanic of a game. You can't objectively comment about it. You didn't like the combat, or the fact that you couldn't control other characters. I didn't mind not taking control of other characters, and the combat did not get monotonous for me, I enjoyed it.
Game is objectively a game. Subjectively for you, it's bad. For me, it's good.
