So Xenoblade X has an 84 on metacritix because there is too much to do and the world is too big?

[DivinePaladin]

Faust said:

Because since xenoblade came out, Japanese developers are putting more effort on their works and thats the reason we are getting so maany great jrpgs lately. 

 FFXV is obviosuly a XBC's rip off, MGS V open world design was inspired by XBC as well. 

 

Even western developers are trying to emulate what XBC did.

 The team behind Titanfall (game of the generation) said in an interview that the whole idea came from a gameplay footage they saw of XBC when human characters are fightning against mechs, they said "it was pretty cool, we should make a game based on that" and so they did.

COD developers drop out the realistic aspect of their games by adding mechs because XBC is  just that good and they want to appeal to XBC audience

 

 SO, imho saying that XBC saved the JRPG genre is falling short. This game saved the whole industry no doubt about it.

I'm glad you're contributing to the conversation by completely missing the point and choosing to hyperbolize instead of form any sort of real input. 

 

I've clarified my points on the previous page, so if you wanna speak up then go ahead, I'll be listening. My goal here, at this point, is to actually hear some discussion on this, but I've yet to see a counter other than "oh, well it didn't sell well so that can't be true." The argument could be made about metascore if you want to dive into scores, but it's tied with what's called the greatest game of all time in that regard (VII), and I then call to the stand Chrono Cross, the second highest rated JRPG of all time to show the flaw of using score alone. But I'm still waiting for something more substantial than "nuh-uh." 

 

And as a response before anybody wished to try and call bias, I restate that I've played maybe 30 hours of Xenoblade since I got it last year. For reference, I've put 70 hours into Fallout in the past three weeks - counting a week of being too busy to touch it at all. I'm not talking from my subjective stance on quality here, I'm talking about history. Read through the reviews and the reactions online that haven't dipped since launch back in 2011/12. The key difference between a Xenoblade and a Persona is the wording in the reviews; with the former you see the writer mentioning that it refines the genre and in the latter you see them talking about how solid an experience it is. The scores stay the same but the impact does not. That's the difference between an Ocarina and a Twilight Princess, a VII and a XII (those two scored the same!), or a Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross. Not that I'm comparing Xenoblade to any of those games here, of course. For all I care I could think the game is garbage and I'd still stand by this, because the trends line up this way no matter if it's good or bad; it's similar to the fact that FDR was one of our most important Presidents even if you want to argue that he was one of the worst.