Lonely_Dolphin said:
bigtakilla said:
Xenoblade 2 is exactly what I thought early on. You can tell the game was rushed (voice acting all over the place quality wise, more frame drops than there should be, game bugs and crashes, ect). It isn't as graphically updated as it should be, the characters look from a range of okay but generic, mediocre and generic, to down right hilariously bad looking waifu designs. Whoever quality controlled must have never bothered with the map, or the ui. It's an incredibly cliché story.
It's not bad, but does absolutely nothing to elevate it from X or the original. When you got a story not as good as the original, and a world not as big as X and instead go a middle ground between the two you never really feel like you've gained anything from this experience.
It easily deserves the metacritic score lowest in the series by both critics and users, as well as the lower opencritic score. It's not a bad game, but one that misses the mark of mastery the other games hit. This is a game of "this works, this doesn't" tradeoff moments that never really stays in the this works territory as long as it should at all.
|
But what about the gameplay? I agree that storywise it's pretty forgettable and I too am not a fan of the skimpy character designs or poor voice acting, but I can forgive everything else as long as the gameplay is there. Compared to the original I'd say X2 easily wins on that front for being much more engaging, though I haven't played XCX for more than 10 minutes so can't say anything about that.
|
Depends really. I'd say gameplay is roughly the same between the two. I'd honestly score them roughly the same with maybe a slight edge to X for being able to eventually become untouchable in skell and ground combat.
