Do not let divisive opinions agitate you. Just avoid them.

You still haven't explained how it saved the genre... if it didn't impulsionate the genre in the platform it was released, it isn't the best seller, it didn't brought new IPs how exactly have it saved?

I didn't realize P4 regular was as popular Stateside as it apparently is, so that's on me. I'll rescind that comment in favor of a more accurate one. Persona as a series, more broadly the whole of SMT, was as cult as cult could be until about 2012. Xenosaga, a game considered cult, sold more than several games in the SMT series combined in the West alone. The same is true of Xenoblade, I know, so let me elaborate. 

What I've been trying to get at (and this addresses DonFerrari's reply as well) is that Xenoblade changed the West's mindset on the genre. Even if you didn't play it, you talked about it for a good while. Sort of like how thousands of people praise Mother 3 despite never touching it once. Critical and public reception was high for both Persona and Xenoblade, but you heard the shouts more often for the latter until recently. Nobody talks about NnK today, but Xenoblade is listed pretty often near the top of the genre. 

THAT's more what I mean when I call Persona "cult." Those shouting about how great it was only came about relatively recently. Hell, as a whole, this camaraderie only came around recently among JRPG fans where we started shouting about awesome games that weren't FF or rarely DQ. I can't attribute that to Xenoblade, that'd be insanely hard to argue and insane outright. But the fact that it's continually listed near the top of the RPG lists I see around (ones that are published by "journalists," obviously, not just gameFAQs threads) shows its impact, and the fact that not too long after we started seeing this effort by Square to finally get it together in a big way, and we see a company like Atlus becoming an RPG powerhouse, can all be arguably drawn back to a change in widespread perception that I'd say came from Xenoblade bringing almost the total package that traditional JRPG fans were looking for for about a decade. 

Hopefully I've cleared up what I've been trying to get at here. So far most of my contribution to this thread has been responses to somebody questioning a single sentence out of a much larger post! Lol

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.

So this is what happen

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. 

Problem with large open world is that, amount of content you can actually put in the game doesn't change regardless of how large the map is...

This means that density and immersion drops if maps gets too large. I honestly felt this on Fallout 4 as well, which is receiving similar score as Xenoblade X.

If my guess is right, Monolith Soft tried to expand world large as possible, not realizing amount of time and resource they will have to fill them isn't changing.

Very probable.

However, neither are Bethesda games, which have MUCH less polish, are glitchy as fuck, and have just as throwaway side missions.

Xenoblade was widely regarded as one of the best RPGs of last gen. This game is said to be an improvement over it in every respect. So it's hard to imagine it not being really good.

But the truth is, they'll give ridiculously high scores to good-but-not-great-and-unpolished-as-hell games like Skyrim, but a lower score to something that the developer actually did take a lot of time to polish.

Xenoblade isn't really my type of game, personally. But still.

The game got the score it deserves.

Bad story.

Uninteresting side quests.

Bad explaining the mechanics and bad/lack tutorial.

Repetitive.

Stiff animations.

Not every game starts at a 10, a 10 is for the ones that are deserving.

If watched the Gamespot's review on youtube yesterday. It sounded like a 6, maybe 7 out of 10 during the review, then it still gets an 8. I was pretty surprised.

According to him many important fighting mechanics, such as healing, aren't properly explained.
The story overall is weak.
You are forced to grind to progress the story.
The side quests are pure filler.
Characters are uninteresting (and poorly modeled and voiced, at least the first woman you meet)

This doesn't sound like a great game at all.

But well, I guess the review was bad overall. He kept saying that despite it short comings, your patience will be greatly rewarded. He failed to explain how it rewards you though.