kingofwale said: Bodhesatva said: It really doesn't, KingofWale. Your defense of the RNG-based battle system (in your last post) and the dialogue (in your second to last post) both consist of this: other JRPGs also do it! Which doesn't make it okay. That's not really a defense so much as an excuse; if I've done something wrong, pointing out that other people have also done something wrong doesn't make it okay. Similarly, having a poor plot and poor battle system isn't suddenly good game design because other succesful games have done it. I'm not saying that there aren't valid defenses of this game, I'm just saying that the one you've given (other games have also made this poor design decisions!) isn't acceptable. Considering they give FFXII 5/5. THis game shouldn't be punish THAT hard for essentially same problem (of course FFXII did better). Poor plot? Poor battle system? hmmm, have you played the game yet?

Absolutely not, I have no interest. I haven't tried to suggest otherwise -- it's why I entered this conversation as a critic of the review, not of the game. I expected to watch the review and see "wow that's totally unfair first he said X was bad but then he said X was okay," but he didn't do anything of the sort. He consistently pointed out his main issues with the game design, taking particular time to repeatedly mention the game's cliched and puerile dialogue.

There is nothing in the review that is contradictory or illogical, from what I can see. If you could point to specific things he says which seem to go against other things he's said -- either in this review or in others -- it would be another issue. But as far as I can tell, he gave his reasons for not liking the game, and while you may not agree with those reasons, they are logically sound. If I thought Gears of War was ugly because the characters were ridiculous and over-masculinized, that would be an acceptable opinion (I do think that, by the way). That's a sound, logical position I could back with examples. You don't necessarily have to agree with that position, but it's not illogical.

If you do not believe the dialogue is bad or that the battle system is repetitive and facile, that's another argument altogether, and I'd be willing to listen (particularly to the latter, as I don't want to get into another conversation about how Final Fantasy is "deep," which is a real argument I've actually seen someone posit). However, the argument you've put forward thus far -- that other games have made these design decisions as well and thus it's okay -- is not a valid position.

Bodhesatva said: kingofwale said: Bodhesatva said: It really doesn't, KingofWale. Your defense of the RNG-based battle system (in your last post) and the dialogue (in your second to last post) both consist of this: other JRPGs also do it! Which doesn't make it okay. That's not really a defense so much as an excuse; if I've done something wrong, pointing out that other people have also done something wrong doesn't make it okay. Similarly, having a poor plot and poor battle system isn't suddenly good game design because other succesful games have done it. I'm not saying that there aren't valid defenses of this game, I'm just saying that the one you've given (other games have also made this poor design decisions!) isn't acceptable. Considering they give FFXII 5/5. THis game shouldn't be punish THAT hard for essentially same problem (of course FFXII did better). Poor plot? Poor battle system? hmmm, have you played the game yet? Absolutely not, I have no interest. I haven't tried to suggest otherwise -- it's why I entered this conversation as a critic of the review, not of the game. I expected to watch the review and see "wow that's totally unfair first he said X was bad but then he said X was okay," but he didn't do anything of the sort. He consistently pointed out his main issues with the game design, taking particular time to repeatedly mention the game's cliched and puerile dialogue. There is nothing in the review that is contradictory or illogical, from what I can see. If you could point to specific things he says which seem to go against other things he's said -- either in this review or in others -- it would be another issue. But as far as I can tell, he gave his reasons for not liking the game, and while you may not agree with those reasons, they are logically sound. If I thought Gears of War was ugly because the characters were ridiculous and over-masculinized, that would be an acceptable opinion (I do think that, by the way). That's a sound, logical position I could back with examples. You don't necessarily have to agree with that position, but it's not illogical. If you do not believe the dialogue is bad or that the battle system is repetitive and facile, that's another argument altogether, and I'd be willing to listen (particularly to the latter, as I don't want to get into another conversation about how Final Fantasy is "deep," which is a real argument I've actually seen someone posit). However, the argument you've put forward thus far -- that other games have made these design decisions as well and thus it's okay -- is not a valid position.

 Well, then I really don't know how you come to the conclusion that this game has poor plot and battle system. Considering only 1 review out of 23 (listed on Gameranking) scored it less than 72%.

 

If this topic of the debate is "Why isn't Crisis Core not an AAA" game, then I agree, it has bad voice-over. But as far as I see, this debate so far has been "Why is Crisis Core getting such low score when other JRPG that suffered the same problem, have gotten much better score". 

 Nobody is saying that Adam shouldn't have his opinion expressed, what people are saying (and read the comments on G4 as well) is that the review was not done fairly. Beating dead the thing that existing on all JRPG just because you aren't a fan of the genre should be left to fanboys, not game-reviewer whose view is supposed to be 'neutral'.

I didn't come to that conclusion, King, I stated that X-Play did. I was arguing that Adam seems to have come to that conclusion, and that he backed his position with actual examples: those sound clips interspersed generously throughout the review were painful, and certainly reinforced his point.

Bad game design is NOT an inherent flaw to all JRPGs. They do not have to automatically have sophmoric dialogue. If that is a common thread amongst man JRPGs, the fanboy position is to excuse it. The objective reviewer should slam it every time it occurs.

Bodhesatva said: kingofwale said: Bodhesatva said: It really doesn't, KingofWale. Your defense of the RNG-based battle system (in your last post) and the dialogue (in your second to last post) both consist of this: other JRPGs also do it! Which doesn't make it okay. That's not really a defense so much as an excuse; if I've done something wrong, pointing out that other people have also done something wrong doesn't make it okay. Similarly, having a poor plot and poor battle system isn't suddenly good game design because other succesful games have done it. I'm not saying that there aren't valid defenses of this game, I'm just saying that the one you've given (other games have also made this poor design decisions!) isn't acceptable. Considering they give FFXII 5/5. THis game shouldn't be punish THAT hard for essentially same problem (of course FFXII did better). Poor plot? Poor battle system? hmmm, have you played the game yet? Absolutely not, I have no interest. I haven't tried to suggest otherwise -- it's why I entered this conversation as a critic of the review, not of the game. I expected to watch the review and see "wow that's totally unfair first he said X was bad but then he said X was okay," but he didn't do anything of the sort. He consistently pointed out his main issues with the game design, taking particular time to repeatedly mention the game's cliched and puerile dialogue. There is nothing in the review that is contradictory or illogical, from what I can see. If you could point to specific things he says which seem to go against other things he's said -- either in this review or in others -- it would be another issue. But as far as I can tell, he gave his reasons for not liking the game, and while you may not agree with those reasons, they are logically sound. If I thought Gears of War was ugly because the characters were ridiculous and over-masculinized, that would be an acceptable opinion (I do think that, by the way). That's a sound, logical position I could back with examples. You don't necessarily have to agree with that position, but it's not illogical. If you do not believe the dialogue is bad or that the battle system is repetitive and facile, that's another argument altogether, and I'd be willing to listen (particularly to the latter, as I don't want to get into another conversation about how Final Fantasy is "deep," which is a real argument I've actually seen someone posit). However, the argument you've put forward thus far -- that other games have made these design decisions as well and thus it's okay -- is not a valid position.

I think the point is that, no matter how simplistic the dialogue is (which is subjective anyway), repitive the battle system maybe (again, pretty subjective), or poor the voiceovers are (really a moot point, since you can always read the text), these complaints don't justify slapping a game with a 4/10, especially considering the 7-10 scale that most reviewers judge games by. From the review alone, I'd expect a 6/10; the inexplicable 4/10 only serves to indicate that the reviewer has thrown a hefty amount of personal bias into his judgment, be it against Sony, J-RPG's, or Final Fantasy 7.

That being said, I don't see why a low score is such an incendiary event. If the guy is as uncredible and biased as everyone is making him out to be, then what is accomplished by complaining about him? As I said before, one person's differing opinion shouldn't affect your own personal enjoyment of the game. Nobody complains when the opposite scenario is true--i.e., a game's score is boosted simply because of blind love for a genre, developer, franchise, etc, which has surely happened to Crisis Core. Anybody who claims that this game could have been released with no Final Fantasy characters/conventions/names/etc and still recieve scores as high as it has been is just deluding themselves.

 

This is just more proof how retarded they are, i was watching the show they other day and they were reviewing the house of the dead game for the wii, it comes with #1 and #2 and each are about 20mins long and are ports of the 98pc game, no updates at all and they gave it a 6/10.

No one is saying this game deserves a 5.. or even a 4, but give it 2 while other game who had the same problem received much higher rating? That itself is what pissed people off.

Is Crisis Core perfect? Well no, but does it deserve 40% rating? Well, no.

I have no doubt Adam came to that conclusion after viewing 4 dialogues, that's because he NEVER PLAYED the game himself. taking them out of content by quoting pieces of it for the sake of bashing it can very easily be done. You can do that with any speech, but if you actually play the game (like Adam should've done), he'd realize it wasn't that horrible, and some of the poetry references are quite witty.

kingofwale said: No one is saying this game deserves a 5.. or even a 4, but give it 2 while other game who had the same problem received much higher rating? That itself is what pissed people off. Is Crisis Core perfect? Well no, but does it deserve 40% rating? Well, no. I have no doubt Adam came to that conclusion after viewing 4 dialogues, that's because he NEVER PLAYED the game himself. taking them out of content by quoting pieces of it for the sake of bashing it can very easily be done. You can do that with any speech, but if you actually play the game (like Adam should've done), he'd realize it wasn't that horrible, and some of the poetry references are quite witty.

This is what Bodesahtva can'd understand; we arent'  saying that his complaints dont' have some legitimacy to them (yes, the dialogue is kinda hammy, and yes, early on you could get away with X-mashing, if you're boring and uncreative), but that Adam gives them far too much attention, and that they should definitely not drop a solid game's score to a FOUR. It's just ridiculous. I've played games that deserve 4's, and this is far from that. 

 

If the quality of dialogue and gameplay is subjective, blaydcor, then I'd insist that everything is subjective (which is true) and that therefore all reviews are simply one guys opinion and don't really matter much anyway. That's certainly a valid position to take -- I just want you to be aware of what that position means.

But I do agree with the rest of your point here, Blayd. Again, it seems like most people seem to agree, to greater or lesser extents, that the faults X-Play notices are genuine faults. Kingofwale, above me, seems to admit that the game does have faults and that it may even deserve a 70% (implicit in his statement that the game may not "deserve a 5.... or even a 4."

The argument, instead, seems to just be that the flaws aren't THAT bad. I'm not saying they're wrong, but it's a fruitless argument. It's like arguing about whether the F word is a REALLY bad word, or just a bad word -- there isn't really a correct answer. So let's just drop this, guys? We seem to agree on most of the fundamentals, and are arguing a difference of degree, not of kind. I'm dropping it, and I hope others will, too.  

blaydcor said: kingofwale said: No one is saying this game deserves a 5.. or even a 4, but give it 2 while other game who had the same problem received much higher rating? That itself is what pissed people off. Is Crisis Core perfect? Well no, but does it deserve 40% rating? Well, no. I have no doubt Adam came to that conclusion after viewing 4 dialogues, that's because he NEVER PLAYED the game himself. taking them out of content by quoting pieces of it for the sake of bashing it can very easily be done. You can do that with any speech, but if you actually play the game (like Adam should've done), he'd realize it wasn't that horrible, and some of the poetry references are quite witty. This is what Bodesahtva can'd understand; we arent' saying that his complaints dont' have some legitimacy to them (yes, the dialogue is kinda hammy, and yes, early on you could get away with X-mashing, if you're boring and uncreative), but that Adam gives them far too much attention, and that they should definitely not drop a solid game's score to a FOUR. It's just ridiculous. I've played games that deserve 4's, and this is far from that.

No, I do understand this. That is, in fact, stated implicitly in the first sentence of my first post in this entire thread. 

You agree that X-play's complaints have legitimacy? Okay, good. We agree then. We're done. I'll restate the first sentence of my first post again: No one seems to be making any criticisms of his actual review, where he gave reasons for this score.

Actually, I said a while ago that I would give the game 8.7. But I'm an RPG fan so I probably overrated the game by about .5. Thus giving an rightful score of 8.2 (closer to Gamerankings' 86%)

 I said the game "deserves 5, or even a 4" in the eyes of non RPG fans such as Adam and Morgan, I thought this game would get the score of 3 from Xplay. Considering they also gave Crysis 3/5. But 2 out of 5 is an insult to RPG fans everything.

And the review itself has more racist comments than Lou Dou on "War on Middle classes". ;) Another reason why people were made on G4 comment box