Sometimes people with disorders can do incredible things! Maybe you're like the rain man of following nonsensicle jumbled up plots.

Thanks for the very original and refreshing thread, OP.

...I liked it. It was pretty much exactly like Final Fantasy X, but better.

I also like the fact that me liking it really riles people up, and makes them look incredibly stupid when they resort to insulting me and trying to prove that my tastes are objectively "wrong". And then they made two sequels, boy oh boy. I could actually feel Toriyama telepathically high fiving me with that one.

Interesting to see you waging your tongue out at the prospect of riling people in this case. Yet, you couldn't comprehend how someone could like Bioshock Infinite over a Final Fantasy game and ended up flipping your shit. Bet they are telepathically high-fiving you for that too. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6171732

or maybe i'm just making use of some obscure thing called "freedom of self interpretation" to a certain degree. you know a lot of people seem to hate running down hallways (gameplay wise) but they love/demand when/that everything storywise is served on a silver platter to them so that they don't have to use their "normal" heads for once. well, i prefere it the other way round but i guess that's also some form of mental disorder. geez... being normal seems to be tough these days. maybe that's why so much people are complaining that the can't enjoy things anymore. wait... "fed, nutured and ready to detonate at the slightest spark", these words suddenly make even more sence to me... i wonder why?

Oh come on, that was clearly a joke. Pretty strange that you were able to dig that up.

I actually don't like Bioshock games at all, but I can respect that other people like it and accept that it's just not for me, therefore I don't discuss it when the game is brought up. You'll never find me writing long winded essays describing how Bioshock fans are delusional and stupid.

EDIT: Oh, we have a new one: "deranged".

I couldn't read your whole post it seem so absurd. If one single player likes a game then it doesn't suck, and thus is a good game....

Wow, I know of people that like the original ET. That does NOT make it a good game. Same goes with a more recent example being Aliens: Colonial Marines. Often I would agree that a single person makes an exception and I would generally argue that a single person can be smart while a mass can be daft. However that is negating that there is just plain and simply, simple people. I'm sure there is no game released ever that hasn't had at least had one single person that enjoys the game no matter how badly coded, terrible the design is, or how aweful the mechanics might be. Unfortunately I would have to go with a majority reference on a game as to if it is decent or not. Admittedly much of this is entirely subjective but leaving it to a single person that might just enjoy the game reference more than the game it's self. 

You obviously didn't read further, and thus failing into the same argumental problem than the OP.

a) A game doesn't suck, as long as someone can like it. That's it. "Suck" is such a word filled with hatred.

b) A game can't be objectively bad. A game is a game. Whether it is good or bad, that's up to subjectiveness.

c) ET, and Alien: Colonial Marines are not games. They are unfinished products, rushed to the market. Same with Big Rigs, or Superman 64 as the OP liked to quote. Hence why these games are widespreadly known as bad.

Have you ever actually played any of the other Final Fantasy games?  The plot, characters, backstory, and world all come together to create something special.  The gamplay has always allowed freedom and true exploration while still maintaining a linear story.  There has always been balance between linear and nonlinear elements. 

Even Final Fantasy X had many nonlinear elements.  At any save point, you could play blitzball.  There were side areas, hidden locations, game-spanning quests, an arena, unique quests for each character's uber weapon, and eventually a series of super hard aeons (dark Aeons) in the international version.  In Final Fantasy XIII, it was strictly linear from chapters 1-10, then again in the final 12 and 13th chapters.  The only part there was any nonlinear elements was in Chapter 11, and that was just a monster hunt that could only happen then and there.  As expected, chapter 11 (Gran Pulse) was the only part of the game I truly enjoyed, gameplay limitations and frustrations and all.  

And seriously, don't try to pretend cycling through 6 available battle formations and modifying equipment is 'deep gameplay' or whatever.  It's absolutely barebones, probably the simplest RPG I've ever played or even heard about.  The entire game is designed with paradigm shifts in mind and little more.  You CAN control ONE character if need be, but even if you know precisely what it is you're looking for (a phoenix down, for example), the battles often went by too fast to really feel you had any sort of control over the world.  

And you CAN'T control your allies.  you can guide them, but like a dog they do whatever the hell they want in the end.  This led to many a frustrating uncalled for game-over when I wanted my ally to move to avoid an attack, heal me (when I'm not a healer myself, since my survival matters most), or use buffs/debuffs.  Not to mention the entire 'you die, game over' glitch (yes, it's a glitch, I refuse to believe that hundreds of employees over the course of half a decade NEVER thought to shoot that idea down) completely ruins gameplay.  it's just BAD.  you can't even switch who you control mid battle if you're anticipating an attack. 

So yes, the game has some interactive elements, but the entire experience is about as shallow as the simplest of rhythm games on the easiest difficulty.  What's this?  Enemy is about to attack the party?  Two sentinels and a medic it is!  And you only get to chose two, and as far as I remember you can't pause the game to decide what paradigm you want, which also resulted in entirely too many deaths.  

I remember sitting down with my brother (who is as big a Final Fantasy fan as I am) and thinking up over a dozen small fixes that would make the combat less of a chore and more fun, most of which would actually FIX the game.  Basically, the combat is broken, fundamentally flawed, and ill-concieved.  The fact that Lightning is dancing all around throughout the fight while sazh is attempting gunkata while the player mostly just watches and mashes 'auto-fight' and 'paradigm shift' from time to time shows that Square wanted this to be a movie, not a game.  

Which would be fine if the story was any good.  

See, the score and visuals were both immaculate.  I don't personally like the art direction and I feel the voice acting/music were more annoying than anything else (I'd almost prefer FFX's voice acting...almost), but really the issue is with the story.  

To clarify, there's a huge difference between story and plot.  Plot is the sequence of events that unfolds during the course of the game, while the STORY is the combined elements of plot, characters, and the world they live in.  I can say "These characters were on a train and got into a fight with the military", but the elements are what give it depth.  In one game, your characters are environmental terrorists looking to blow up a reactor on the industrialized city of midgar to incite change in the world; in the other, you're a disgruntled religious outcast sent to the outlands and are rebelling in the name of your sister.  Similar plot, very different story.  

So when I say the STORY of Final Fantasy XIII is bad, I mean it.  The PLOT is good; the sequence of events that brings the six protagonists together is decent, and the fall and rise of them and their goal is admirable.  I didn't mind the actual plot to Final Fantasy XIII, but the story was just bad because the characters were flat and two-dimensional (you want three dimensions at least, four dimensions if they actually have a good character arc), and almost all of the world's history is hidden behind the barriers you can't cross for fear of you actually experiencing anything but exactly what the developers wanted you to do.  

In other games (Final Fantasy 12 being a prime example), a lackluster plot is made up for by an incredibly deep world with three (or four) dimensional characters. yeah, you needed to do side quests to understand much of Balthier and Fran's relationship, but YOU experienced that, YOU discovered that.  you actually had to take time, and your digging was rewarded with some armor or money or something.  there was actual incentive to do it, and the characters gained depth in the process. 

With Final Fantasy XIII, there are no side quests.  there are no mini games.  There are no articles to find, you just have to go and read about that character that lasted all of three scenes to find out why their involvement was important.  Yeah, the information is there, but you don't experience it, you read it.  IT's a prime example of how not to do "show don't tell."  In Final Fantasy XIII, your side quests were reading.  Your minigames were homework, not games.  You were expected to study the datalogs if you wanted to understand the world and the characters rather than going out of your way to find things on your own.  

In previous Final Fantasies, you could leave a town and explore.  There were caves and locations and areas on the map you NEVER have to go to in order to finish the plot, but still deepen the story and the world.  

Take Skyrim as an example:  The actual technical performance of that game was terrible, the animations were lackluster, the voice acting was kinda poor...but over 90% of the game's content is side quests, random areas, and adventure.  You learn by talking to people, and the writing was top notch.  90% of Final Fantasy XIII's story and world building was never experienced by the player.  

Show, don't tell. 

Final Fantasy XIII fails at narrative becase it doesn't understand that, to engage a player, you should show rather than tell.  

Final Fantasy XIII fails at gameplay due to limited control over your characters and strict navigation.  IT might as well be on rails in an arcade. 

And that's why Final Fantasy XIII is a bad game.  It may be functional, but it is neither engaging or properly interactive.  Heavy Rain let the player have more control over the story than FFXIII.  

I never said the game was "objectively" bad.  It's story telling is though.  I'm just saying the game wasn't balanced and there's very little reason to play beyond two ravagers and a commando.  You didn't do that, and you probably spent more time changing paradigms than actually beating the grunts in the game.  Does that mean the OP is wrong?  No.  Does that mean you're wrong?  No, like I mentioned the combat had strategy, the game wasn't built around it.

I love Final Fantasy XIII for the game it is and for for the nerds it irked rofl