Best to just stick to what you know, don't worry too much about what people expect from you. Stick to your opinion of things, if you think it sucks, say so and back it up and vice versa.

Maybe I chose the wrong word. English is not my 1st language so I get a lot of Internet vocabulary...

What I liked about the battle system is that it is quite strategic. You can get to Gran Pulse without using a medic if you do it well. I didn't think it was simplified from previous FF, I used to spam either attack or fire/ice/water/thunder with those (with random encounters). I admit that auto-battle shouldn't be there.

For me, the problem is that 90% of the game is battling, so you do a lot of the same fo much of the game, because you encounter the same kind of enemies many times. In previous FF there weren't so many easy random encounters so it doesn't leave you with that feeling. Also, for the first third of the game even the bosses are easy. It can be tedious.

But as I said, I have no problem with any opinion as long as it is argumented.

Serious.

the funniest thing is that I've been saying for years I wanted a Final Fantasy game where 90% of the battles weren't just random encounters where you just mash X (or whatever the button is to confirm) until all the enemies are dead.  I have been longing for a game where every fight required you pay attention and use strategy, and that was one of the things I tried telling myself early on.  I was actually happy with the fact that even regular encounters were tough, but it soon became apparent that the battle system was in many ways flawed.  Good in theory, poor in execution. That and I think XII was a much better game since you had far more control over your allies and if you died you just switched out.  While it too allowed most battles to be auto-fought, it was much more detailed and you didn't leave your survival up to random encounters or whatever your allies decided to do.  

I agree about the amount of random battles.

Abut XII, can't comment because I haven't played it but I will some day soon I hope. I hope SE releases an HD version.

You admit that you gave inFamous an 8.9 when it was glitchy. You talk of the good old days of reviewing, but I clearly remember games with bugs and other stuff not getting over an 8.5 or an 8. Newsflash, the score system goes from 1-10 not 6-10. Basically, practice what you preach.

@Machina
I blame you for your terrible SC2 score/review and gave it a near 9 despite Battle.net 2.0 being so terrible, lack of LAN, etc.

There should be a way to write/revise reviews and such stuff. I remember back when I used to read CGW (seriously, their scores/reviews were some of the fairest I have seen in retrospect) and they gave Black&White 5 stars, then an issue later they went ahead and had a column apologizing for the shit review, and it got made fun of by the staff here tand there for a few months.

P.S. I reallt hink reviewers shuld start factoring in features and stuff. No dedicated servers? -1 point. No lan on a simple game which should? Another half point. So on and so forth. It would bring current games up to par with their actual scores. The people shouldn't have to adapt to the games lack of features, the developers should adapt to the people and give them what they want or face the consequences.

Edit: I should mention I fully agree with what the OP was talking about with current gamers being fucking idiots and not even considering controls, level design, bugs, etc. in games whenthat is the ONLY thing that really matters in a game (man, FUCK the bug in Terraria that got me kiled).

how am I not?  not EVERY review did the same thing, and I know some of the best games ever released have glitches in them.  the issue is: Do the glitches negatively impact the gameplay?  I found in inFamous 2, they really didn't.  yeah there was a very odd time it happened, but I went through the game, my brother went through it twice, and each of my friends that I leant the game to went through it, and put together, all 5 times through the game, there were perhaps three physical glitches, the rest were strictly aesthetic.  that's not game breaking, but it is worth mentioning and it's enough to keep it from that coveted 90%+.  

Also, I have a very clear way to review things: 

95-100 - Absolutely exemplary, unrivalled games, the best ever, flawless in practically every way

90-94 - Truly fantastic, cream of the crop type stuff. Near perfection. 

80-89 - Great games, fantastic in almost every way, some flaws keep it from 9+

70-79 - Good games, these games are really fun to play in spite of their flaws

60-69 - decent games. These are fun to play but have parts that detract from their score

50-59 - Acceptable games. marred with issues but still worth playing if just to say you did

40-49 - Poor games, where the unpleasantness outweighs the good, but they might still be worth playing for that one good gameplay mechanic or the story

30-39 - Bad Games, these games may have their fun parts, but they are mostly bad with few redeeming factors

20-29 - horrible games, these games are fundamentally broken, unenjoyable, and have almost no redeeming factors

10-19 - atrocious games, they are an absolute mess, bad in every way

0-9 - offensively bad games, these get absolutely nothing right and even if they did they'd still be atrocious for other reasons such as story or graphics. 

pretty much exactly what GamrReview has as their criteria. 

were infamous' glitches severe and had a massive negative impact on gameplay? were they frequent? or were they infrequent and minor?

The thing is plain statistics though. the 45-50 range should have the most games, not as few as they are. Meanwhile go take a look at the gamrReview scores, and come back and tell me how they are distributed. As it stands, it's more or less well distributed in the 50-95 range, with just a handful of games under 50. If you want go ahead and plot them out and see the distribution in a graph, I'm too lazy to do so, but I have a really nice idea what it'd look like.