By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Goodnightmoon on 03 December 2015
Naum said:
Mummelmann said:
FFXIII got an 83 on the PS3, biased reviewers are the worst.


Yeah that games should have gotten 60 at most.

You are being too generous now.



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 03 December 2015
Mummelmann said:
FFXIII got an 83 on the PS3, biased reviewers are the worst.



DonFerrari on 03 December 2015
Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:
And someone isn't supposed to finish the game or use 40-100h to evaluate it... if in 5 hours you can't take it any longer your opinion is obviously that you didn't like it. So what is the problem that you need to complain that someone didn't like or obligated himself to put the time on that... the only problem I see would be putting people that distaste the genre to evaluate.

Because if you only played 5 hours of a game that lasts 40-100 hours you wont be able to see everything that the game offers, wont be able to describe accurately in your review what the game is about, giving a poor service to your readers.

If you are playing the game just for fun, thats ok.Its your game and you do what you want with it.But if you are doing reviews for living, and your job is to describe not to yourself, but to others what the game is all about, you cant play 20% of the game and call it a day."Here is my review of the game:The game sucks" That is not a review.If you dont want to do this kind of things, to force yourself a bit to play a game that you need to review(unless the game is downright unplayable), you shouldnt be a reviewer in the first place.

So if you received a book to review and you think it's horrible after 30-50 pages would you say that a honest opinion for a review or critic need to read the other 1950 pages?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 03 December 2015
Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

If you can't understand the story, level up enough through the story itself shouldn't the relevant side missions become part of the story instead of the player having to discover what is important and what is filler in the sidequests

Wait wait.The reviewers that said the story was bad didnt say it wasnt understandable, they just thought it was simple.And it dosnt work that way.A game is not only made of the "obligatory" missions.If the side missions dont have content it wont make sense for having them in the first place.And if you could just rush through the story without doing anything extra or exploring the world, the game would just be easy, and then reviewers would complain about it.If you play The Witcher 3 in the normal difficulty most likely you wont be able to just rush the story, you would need to "grind" a bit, doing side quests, yet noone complained about it.The problem is if this "grinding" is boring or not.Thats the issue that reviewers had with the game.I still need to play the game to judge for myself, but i hardly see myself getting bored with the multitude of content that there is in the game.But thats my opinion

So they think the story is simple, and your problem with that is that they didn't know the whole Lore because they didn't play the whole side quest?

You may say what you want and disagree with them. But it seems like their opinion is that the story and leveling isn't well designed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Nautilus on 03 December 2015
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

Because if you only played 5 hours of a game that lasts 40-100 hours you wont be able to see everything that the game offers, wont be able to describe accurately in your review what the game is about, giving a poor service to your readers.

If you are playing the game just for fun, thats ok.Its your game and you do what you want with it.But if you are doing reviews for living, and your job is to describe not to yourself, but to others what the game is all about, you cant play 20% of the game and call it a day."Here is my review of the game:The game sucks" That is not a review.If you dont want to do this kind of things, to force yourself a bit to play a game that you need to review(unless the game is downright unplayable), you shouldnt be a reviewer in the first place.

So if you received a book to review and you think it's horrible after 30-50 pages would you say that a honest opinion for a review or critic need to read the other 1950 pages?

Of course.The book can be horible the first 50 pages, but after that it could developed in a decent or even good book.You wont know until you read at the end.And as a person that wants to know about the book, if you read the preview of that guy that only read the first 50 pages you will think:Ok, the intro is bad, but what about the rest?Couldnt there be a reedeming factor?

I dont think reviewers need to 100% the story per se, but doing the bare minimum is not only unprofessional, but completely wrong.People who do this shouldnt even be called a professional, let alone a  reviewer.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Nautilus on 03 December 2015
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

Wait wait.The reviewers that said the story was bad didnt say it wasnt understandable, they just thought it was simple.And it dosnt work that way.A game is not only made of the "obligatory" missions.If the side missions dont have content it wont make sense for having them in the first place.And if you could just rush through the story without doing anything extra or exploring the world, the game would just be easy, and then reviewers would complain about it.If you play The Witcher 3 in the normal difficulty most likely you wont be able to just rush the story, you would need to "grind" a bit, doing side quests, yet noone complained about it.The problem is if this "grinding" is boring or not.Thats the issue that reviewers had with the game.I still need to play the game to judge for myself, but i hardly see myself getting bored with the multitude of content that there is in the game.But thats my opinion

So they think the story is simple, and your problem with that is that they didn't know the whole Lore because they didn't play the whole side quest?

You may say what you want and disagree with them. But it seems like their opinion is that the story and leveling isn't well designed.

No, Im saying that by what they imply, that the carachters dont have depth and that the story in general seems simple,but that would be somewhat fixed if they did most of the affinity missions.But I agree thats a reasonable point to critic.

Its just that reading many of the "bad" reviews, most of them seem to not care to give the necessary effort to truly understand the game or understand its mechanics, or the reviewers were ones that simply dont like JRPGs to begin with.Wished they took more time with the games to try and do all they could before releasing the review, but alas.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Hynad on 03 December 2015
Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

So they think the story is simple, and your problem with that is that they didn't know the whole Lore because they didn't play the whole side quest?

You may say what you want and disagree with them. But it seems like their opinion is that the story and leveling isn't well designed.

No, Im saying that by what they imply, that the carachters dont have depth and that the story in general seems simple,but that would be somewhat fixed if they did most of the affinity missions.But I agree thats a reasonable point to critic.

Its just that reading many of the "bad" reviews, most of them seem to not care to give the necessary effort to truly understand the game or understand its mechanics, or the reviewers were ones that simply dont like JRPGs to begin with.Wished they took more time with the games to try and do all they could before releasing the review, but alas.

So basically...

If a reviewer likes it: That's on the game's effort.

If a reviewer doesn't like it (or doesn't like it as much): It's the reviewer's fault.


Doesn't seem like a biased way to see things one bit.



Nautilus on 03 December 2015
Hynad said:
Nautilus said:

No, Im saying that by what they imply, that the carachters dont have depth and that the story in general seems simple,but that would be somewhat fixed if they did most of the affinity missions.But I agree thats a reasonable point to critic.

Its just that reading many of the "bad" reviews, most of them seem to not care to give the necessary effort to truly understand the game or understand its mechanics, or the reviewers were ones that simply dont like JRPGs to begin with.Wished they took more time with the games to try and do all they could before releasing the review, but alas.


But of course!

Every good review of the game = That's on the game's effort.

Every "bad" review = It's the reviewer's fault.


Doesn't seem like a biased way to see things one bit.

In most cases I would agree with you.But reading through the reviews this game seem like it had alot of mediocre reviews.Dont get me wrong:Its not all of them that are badly done.Some of the ones that gave a lower score were right to do so, because he didnt like the game after he had experienced it all and truly felt that the game were missing in some points.When the reviewer dedicates himself to play the game and gives it a lower score than others, thats perfectly fine.But there were some reviewers that saying that killing weak monsters took too long, or that the combat system were all automated(implying there was no strategy and the like), which simply isnt true.Those are the reviews im mad about.85 is an excellent score, but I felt that it should have scored a little higher.Will buy this day 1 regardless, but I like to see a game get the recognition when it deserves



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

etking on 03 December 2015

FFXIII music is great but the rest of the game is not, it is by far the worst game in the entire series. Xenoblade X will arrive tomorrow but I think it will not be able to beat Xenoblade Chronicles because story, music, characters and localization will be weaker.

If you are unsure if you want to buy the game, watch the title screen trailers on youtube (22 minutes with a lot of potential spoilers after the 10 minute mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOiDv0KNKg , it was what made me play the original Xenoblade. I was expecting a mediocre JRPG but I got the best gaming experience in the last 10 years and could not stop playing.



Hynad on 03 December 2015
Nautilus said:
Hynad said:


But of course!

Every good review of the game = That's on the game's effort.

Every "bad" review = It's the reviewer's fault.


Doesn't seem like a biased way to see things one bit.

In most cases I would agree with you.But reading through the reviews this game seem like it had alot of mediocre reviews.Dont get me wrong:Its not all of them that are badly done.Some of the ones that gave a lower score were right to do so, because he didnt like the game after he had experienced it all and truly felt that the game were missing in some points.When the reviewer dedicates himself to play the game and gives it a lower score than others, thats perfectly fine.But there were some reviewers that saying that killing weak monsters took too long, or that the combat system were all automated(implying there was no strategy and the like), which simply isnt true.Those are the reviews im mad about.85 is an excellent score, but I felt that it should have scored a little higher.Will buy this day 1 regardless, but I like to see a game get the recognition when it deserves

But before saying a game "gets the recognition it deserves", shouldn't you wait until you play it to see if any of the praise and complains are indeed deserved?

I'm receiving the game tomorrow through Amazon. Those reviews don't do much to diminish my hype for the game. But only after I finally played the game will I know if any of those reviews ring true to me. I can only know if any of those points will bother me after I get first hand experience of the game and its features.

A point that's mentioned a lot is the lack of proper explanations for a lot of the game's systems. Is it really so? Or it is simply that it requires the player to be more attentive when some of that stuff is explained? Could be a bit of both... I'll know tomorrow.

I simply think it's funny for people who haven't yet played the game to call out reviewers who aren't all praise for the game.