Wright said:
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. For you, it's bad. For me, it's good. |
I never said it was bad, I'm not as harsh on it as Runa. I said it was a bad Final Fantasy.
Depends how you break it down but your comments can be objective. Though I'm really curious how you played the game for 45 hours fighting THOUSANDS of enemies way below your level that could stagger within seconds using two Ravagers and finished off with a commando all within 10 seconds, for hours at a time until a cutscene, which would last roughly ten minutes, just to go back to those 10 second fights (6 hours of cutscenes leaves 9 minutes of cutscenes for every hour for a 40 hour game). I mean, I actually tried to run past enemies but the corridors are too tight to avoid very many fights (until Pulse, but Pulse is a small portion of game that branches into very tight and small corridors). Like, don't take this as an attack against you liking the game cause I'm not. I'm just really curious as to why you'd waste your time with any of the other paradigms when they weren't necessary and slower, save for a few fights (Juggernauts come to mind).








