Yahtzee vs. the JRPG Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT | |
I played the game, and the only reason I was able to stomach the first 20 hours of utter boredom (after which, it actually becomes a decent game) is because of the respect I have from its predecessors. I sware if this game's title did not had Final Fantasy at the begining I would have thrown it away at the first hour. After fully playing it, all I can say is that the game = shit compared with the previous installments(obviously with the exception of #10 & #12 which were dripping piles of crud as well). The story IS there but is fed to me through endless cinematics and that fucking data log, the characters HAVE the possibility to grow on you but in order to do so id recommend you do a little research on your own (that is if you actually care, unlike me), the new battle system altho curious left me feeling that the characters didnt even wanted me to be with them, the AI on my party members did such good job, so why bother NOT selecting auto attack in every turn (turning the battles into odd cinemas), then, in order to put the cherry on top the "Paradigm shift" basically, made the RPG battle look like an RTS battle where all I do is call the roles; Lightning, attack!, Vanelle, heal!, Snow, tank!, Hope, go get the chips!. And I wont even get started with the stupid leveling system that these guys came up with. | |
Sorry but this is exactly the difference between an informative review (that weighs the good and the bad) and an hate/ego-filled rant for the lulz. | |
I always like the Phantasy Star 2 battle system. Instead of zooming in to fight on some weird astral representation of the environment you were in, it zooms in and you fight on a blue sheet of cosmic graph paper. | |
It IS a hatred filled rant for the lulz review thing, yet it conveys the information; why, how, and how much the game sucks, in some cases less than others; For instance, Gears of War, Bioshock (which he classified as one of the best games of the year), Dragon age and some others have received Yatzhee's "approval" yet they DO NOT receive absolute praises from him, quite the contrary. ZP points out what why a game sucks and what are its flaws rather than why is good and why you simply "must" have it. While not a deciding factor on whether or not you should buy it, it is a pretty handy point of view when you consider making a purchase. + its funny as hell! Dont know what else to tell you, well, I bought RE5 even after watching ZP and I really enjoyed the game since I knew that the negative points about the game werent going to bother me at all, ok, it was true that Sheva was a little bit annoying and the inventory system was crafted with the same attention and care as FF13's first 20 hours of story(HA!) but, for me, it was entertaining non the less. A similar thing happened with Assasins Creed. | |
No, he does not point out "every little detail". How could he possibly do that if he doesn't even play all aspects of the games (namely MP)? I'm sorry but he is not omniscient. He can't put in a game, play for five minutes, and automatically know all the faults of the game. As I have said many times, you should play the games, THEN look at his reviews. Reason being that he blows things out of proportion, or doesn't even touch on most of a games content. It's pretty amazing that people are actually discouraged to get a game based on this kind of "review", if you can even call it that. No one that has such prejudice towards certain game mechanics can be taken seriously as a reviewer, let alone someone that doesn't even finish games. If you think that Yahtzee seriously touched on all the negative aspects of FFXIII, from just playing it for five hours, you're delusional Tetran. | |
Sorry, but there's nothing informative about some hateful dribble that happen to only display some random guy's tastes (and exaggerated, on top of that). You may be able to read through them,and that's more power to you, but a review that makes you struggle through the hate in order to try and relate to it simply isn't information. It's a rant. There are tons of random guys with a blog that rant on the internet. | |
You said:
Take a look at all the opinions he puts forward in there, and tell me that they are not designed to influence the reader. | |
The difference is that he provides a lot of information before he giving his opinion. The information allows the reader to make his own opinion. There's a world of difference with Yatzhees, that provides ONLY opinion (and biased opinion to boot), and really no factual information at all. This, of course, not to mention when he actually provides false of misleading information or blatant omissions in order to avoid spoiling "the lulz", and it happens quite often. | |
The synopsis of the book does sound interesting, and to compare it to Douglas Adams has me drooling slightly. Do want. | |
This is a common misconception, actually. Player controlled games are capable of equally deep stories, the only difference is that the depth of the story is dependent on the player. You actually have to uncover the depth yourself rather than just have it handed to you in a cut-scene.
Ah, sorry then. To be honest I only half-remembered some quote about that in the last ten pages.
Fair enough, though in my experience when people start getting excessively descriptive about the "hate" from the other person, they've taken it a little too personally. Granted, Yahtzee is pretty descriptive in his reviews, but he's a comedian that built his reputation on shock. What's your excuse?
Again, you are talking like those two things have to be separate, which they don't. It's perfectly possible to tell a story almost primarily through gameplay.
This is where you don't understand me. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm just saying it's not good game design. Good game design would find a way to make it interactive. Just because I say it's not good game design doesn't mean I think it's the "worse option". If I thought that then I would think movies/books/etc are all bad because they never use good game design. In other words, you like games that are more movies than games, and I'm okay with that. I (and Yahtzee) say that that when I play games, I prefer them to be, you know, interactive, because I'm playing a game. When I complain about FF having too many cinematics, I'm not complaining that it's "worse" because of them (indeed, I quite like them, just not when I'm in the mood for playing a game), I'm just saying the game is not using interaction as much as it could be (which it's not).
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about cutting out the story. I'm just saying that it could be better integrated into the gameplay.
Hm, maybe I'd give you AC2 and U2, but Blizzard has never been big on long cut-scenes, and the Red Alert games I played weren't either. And while Uncharted did have quite a few cut-scenes, it also had quite a few "cinematic" gameplay sequences, so the jump between the two was not so jarring. I'd still probably level many of the complaints I have about FF at it, though. Well, I'm off to work now, so I'll have to get to the rest of your comments later. Looking forward to your responses =) | |
So what you really mean is that a good review should give information about the game's features. Here is where we disagree; most developers are quite keen to tout for themselves just what features the game has to offer, so when I sit through a review that just copy pastes that list I feel like I'm wasting my time. What I want personally from a review is to know what it feels like to be played, and that means a big, fat, scary opinion. Yes, Yahztee's opinion is incredibly biased, but as I was taught in eighth grade history: everyone is biased in some way. A truly impartial game review would say simply that you should play it for yourself and see. But the reason I take his advice seriously is that having watched all of his videos and seeing what he does and doesn't complain about, I get the feeling we have fairly similar tastes, so chances are if he rips on something, I won't enjoy it. So personally I don't care that he only provides opinions, because that really is what gives me an impression of whether or not I will enjoy a game. I don't take everything he says for granted - but I can think of so many moments when I'm playing a game I bought regardless of the review and I think "well, Yahtzee was dead right about this". I seriously don't get why you have so much invested in trying to flame Yahtzee: it's not like his review will even affect the metacritic score of FFXIII, so I suspect you're just trolling. In which case I'll leave you to it, but I'll just conclude by saying keep up the good work Yahtzee, there are people out there who really appreciate you :D | |
Not really, because of a simple matter of resources, and game development is a big time matter of resources. If a game developer needs to develop only a single A to B storyline, he can concentrate all his creative resources on that. To each their own, and both kind of games have their place to different kind of gamers. It's a tradeoff.
oh but I don't "hate" yathzee. I just gave up on his ability and/or will to pull out a professonal review from his hat. If i had to be hatin all the bad gaming journalists out there, my life would be a trainwreck of negativity.
Possible yes. With the same results? No. It's a tradeoff. With some games is good, with some others is less good. Some gamers prefer one, some others prefer the other.
DUH. I'm sorry, but you should reread what you just wrote, mate. "I'm not saying it's worse. I'm just saying it's not good game design". Does not compute.
It's not "good" game design. It's just one game design philosophy. It's like saying that stoicism was objectively better than epicureanism. You may like being stoic, and that's your personal opinion, but it doesn't make Epicurean people bad.
Strawman. Most of the time, even in cutscene-heavy games is spent with interactive gameplay. If you take Final Fantasy XIII for instance, less than 10% of the whole time is spent with cutscenes (much less for me, since I explored the whole open area, did all the mession, got all the ultimate weapons and such, and in about 140 hours I probably spent about 3-4 hours with cutscenes). Do your math :D And there are VERY few examples of games that have much more than 10% of the time spent during cutscenes. It's obvious that most games out there, no matter how cutscene-heavy they are, are much more games than movies.
Long or short (most cutscenes in FFXIII are quite short, mind you), they still tell their stories primarily through cutscenes, or only through cutscenes. | |
Fair enough, let me change my comparison then. Telling your story mainly through cut-scenes in a game is like a film telling it's story mainly through audio and only showing video during the action sequences.
They aren't "in addition" if I have to watch them to get any of the story. So yes, they do take away from time that I could otherwise be playing a game.
Well then we basically agree about what should be in a review. I'm just surprised you don't think that most professional game reviews nowadays are nothing more than lengthier versions of the back-of-the-box feature list.
Well, of course movies don't cover gameplay. That doesn't mean we can't compare the basic structure of reviews between mediums like we did above with the whole objective/opinion thing. BTW I already know you dislike Yahtzee as a reviewer. No need to keep beating a dead horse. Just because I agree with one point he made doesn't mean I think he's a professional reviewer.
Again, you are operating under another common misconception that a game needs to be "open" in order to tell its story through gameplay. This just simply isn't true because there are plenty of linear games that tell their stories almost completely through gameplay. BTW, if we were arguing about which was better, linear or open world, I would agree that it's a matter of taste, but that's not what this discussion is about.
Hah. Ditto for me, although apparently for completely different reasons.
Alright, lemme fix this to try and make my point clearer: "I'm not saying it's worse. I'm just saying it's cinematic direction not game design".
Hm, actually now that you mention it you are right. Plus it seems as though I've gotten a bit off my original point. I said before that I just think it's better game design to progress most of your story through interaction rather than passive means like cut-scenes (especially is story is supposed to be one of the main features of your game). So I guess I guess I'll qualify my earlier statement: to me it seems like you prefer linear stories in movie form rather than game form. Again, this isn't a "judgement". I'm not saying you have bad taste. Some people just prefer movies to games, or books to movies, etc.
That's definitely not true of Blizzard. Though they may bookend their missions with cut-scenes, the missions progress the story just as much (if not more than) their cinematics. | |
Well, it's good to know that Yahtzee does like some JRPG's, which makes him much more intelligent than the people who think that it's cool to blindly agree with things that Yahtzee says and loudly complain about JRPGs all the time as if people actually care. | |
And in fact there are plenty of movies that concentrate on the audio experience more than video. Mind you, they're even considered quite artistic.
Oh sure, even menus "take away" from time you could otherwise be "playing the game", this doesn't mean that menus are bad game design. Let's not even mention the fact that cutscenes are entertaining for many. As long as they are entertaining, there's simply no reason to remove them or to consider them inferior to gameplay. They enrich the game, they sure don't take away from it.
If you're talking about "professional journalists" as "people that write reviews as a job" a good slice definately are like that.
Hard to make a comparison when one of the very basic elements is completely different. In any case, the fact that a good slice of movie critics have become ego tripping tools that give no real information to their readers, but just fill pages with their own ego because the moviemaking industry refused them as moviemakers and so they have to show their "superiority" over it (thing that, mind you, is becoming quite common even between gaming reviewers unfortunately, i could make more than a couple names...), doesn't make it the right or professional approach.
You're the one that talked about "player controlled". That normally is used to indicate branching gameplay.
Again, you seem to think you're in a position to dictate what game design is. You're not.
I'd disagree there. Most important part of the story is in my opinion shown during cutscenes. What you describe is more Relic's way (And just for the record, I happen to think that Relic is immensely better than Blizzard, but that's another story). Anyway, even if you were to exclude Blizzard, I'd say it's evident that there are still plenty developers (and critically acclaimed too) that tell their stories mainly through cutscenes. There always will be, as long as there'll be an audience for them. Besides the ones mentioned, of course, Kojima is the master there, and if you tell me that Kojima is a bad game developer, I'm gonna claw your eyes out :D | |
I really don't get the point in automating the battle. Sure, a lot of people think random battles are annoying, but they're also the only time there's really gameplay other than running around and talking to people. In essence, the battles are the game, so instead of this "Let's have the other characters uncontrollable and even then you can just choose Auto-Attack for the character you get to control" how about we take a look at FFX-2's battle system (the best in the series IMO). First of all, it's real-time (well, as real-time as you're going to get without this becoming an action RPG) secondly, you have to control all the characters, all the time. This isn't a bad thing, you want the player to be thinking about what he's going to do next, constant thinking and control keeps the player entertained. Sure if the enemies are easy he can just hold down the X button to attack, but then there's still that whole "I'm controlling the party" feeling the player will get. So really, I'm asking Square to get rid of the gambit system and make the battle system exactly like 10-2. (Or just make it FFXIII but without auto-attack and you have to control every character) | |
too much crap, didn't read. seriously yahtzee? thats just trolling. | |
Trudat etc etc. Crono rivals Link in the best silent video game protagonist category. On a different note, I still see FFVII as one of the best in the series despite Yahtzee's coments, as has been said by others here, I accepted the stodgey turn-based gameplay because I enjoyed to story so much. Ignoring the whole compilation of FFVII (which may be difficult considering how much of it there is) 7 less angst driven than most modern JRPG's which I suppose relates to slippery slope theory put forward by Yahtzee in his review (in that, VII started the tumble towards the current depths being spelunked by square enix.). In conclusion, Square should never have had voices added to their characters and they should stop milking FFVII like its some kind of Arcturan Mega-Donkey. | |
I agree with the statement that the FF series got a bit....weird after VII (Giant Swords and Gunblades anyone?), but ditching the whole series as a whole is a bit extreme. There's also the fact that the battle system changes between games, so the Paradigm system isn't going to to be the series norm (I do like it however). That said some JRPGs shamelessly copy other successful JRPGs, so they can kind of bleed together quality-wise. On Chrono Trigger, I think it is one of the best JRPGs of all time. P.S: people who go "Yahtzee is a n00b because he don't like [Insert game title here]", you're both the bane of his existence and one of his main sources of pleasure (he loves watching you squirm) | |
Just as a sidenote, even if she was 16, a lot of places, including Japan, has 14 or 15 as the age of consent. So to many there's nothing wrong with that. | |
Cut scenes should only be used when gameplay cant be used to convey the same thing, if i have no control it should be a damn good reason. The control can even be quite minor, let me control some fidgeting, or pace about, omething little to make me feel involved, as there are few things as immerion breaking as removing me totaly from my charechter, especially if my charecter isnt incpacitated, having a visions ok, but even they can be controlled. If effectively my controls limited to fighting then I'm not the charecter I'm his bloody stunt double. Heavily cutscened games can be just as good entertainment as games that tell the story through gameplay devices (or do without a conventional narritive at all), but judging how good a GAME something is should come down to how it comes accross while you are controling it. As an overall package FF games are objectively quite good (though not to my particular taste) but they have a tendancy to suffer as games as the storyline is somewhat divorced from the actual gameplay. This was accpetiable back in the day, abit like only text-based dialogue was, but now game engine are capiable of tellign omething than bloody well use it, or make a movie thats stops everycouple of minutes to wait for some tenisouly related minigame to be sucefully completed before you let people watch the next bit. | |
Too bad that the "something little to make you feel involved" comes at the expense of cinematic power, which for many means less actual emotional involvment. It's a tradeoff, and many developers don't want to trade that off.
Bingo. Ergo they are both perfectly viable solutions. Both can create good games. There's nothing else.
Jusdging how good a GAME is comes down to how fun it is (and for many, how much emotional impact it has). That's all there is to it. | |
Well since his last review I've lost all respect and probably won't watch any more. He complained that MW2 was too short and then he played 5 hours of a 60 hour long game and complained about things he hasn't even grasped yet. | |
I am now convinced that, when it comes to opinions on video game design, Yahtzee and me are the same person. | |
It's not the same point: He communicated that the game was unintuitive and frustrating to play, a dry explanation of what the dodge move does and doesn't do does not communicate that. Explaining that a game is frustrating is a valid point to make. For all your grandiose claims, your point is simple. "He disagrees with me and therefore is wrong and stupid and has no integrity." And Hideyo Kojima is a bad game designer...he spends so much time on overblown cinematic spectacle but doesn't bother to fix the glaring issue of a fixed camera being horrible for navigating a three-dimensional map. | |
Besides the point that Yahtzee made, there are a few reasons why I no longer play Jrpg's anymore. 1. Mentally unstable characters being left with saving the world. With the exception of FF9, the FF including and after FF7 were left with people who could barely take care of themselves. Thus life forcing them to be adults...again...and again... This may be a good idea the 1st time, but it got old...and fast. If the main character had at least some life experience than Aerith wouldn't have died needlessly. But that is just nit-picking on my part. 2. Lots of exploration but illusion to an open world. Whether you want to admit it or not, FF have had A LOT of exploration but lacked being an open world. More or less gave an illusion of one. Bridges not fixed, monsters beyond your lvl, gates locked, etc. Kept the character you were manipulating from exploring the world he/she lived in. You would know WHO you needed to talk to to progress, BUT you would have to do a few pit stops with other minor or major characters before activating the key to continue. Thus the point some people make why it feels more like reading a book/watching a movie than interacting in the world. You have characters that could summon gods to their planet and they have problems passing a wooden gate....really? 3. Odd moments to be a drama queen. Many FF main characters discover a life changing problems and fold over like a piece of paper before even trying to face the problem/trauma. Though it gives good drama, I just think to myself "Is this really the time to fold? Ya know,....the world being close to destruction....could use your help with a less cloudy head.." I'm not saying that its really bad to do this....just that FF does it FAR too often. Maybe a change with the characters where they push forward and worry about it later would give it a fresh feel for a FF main character that wasn't a *****....just saying... 4. Turn-based combat. I'm not saying that its getting old, but it is getting really stale for me. I played Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2. I NEVER want to go back to FF again because of that game alone. I no longer see a reason to stand still and put the ability to block or dodge left to luck....its just odd now... Okay, we all know that to take down a very slow but strong opponent is to NOT stand still and continue to dodge and weave. Yet I see the characters of FFXIII face such a opponent and just stand there and take the hits. I am sorry, but that isn't really strategy to face such an opponent and the only solution is just lvling up. I like JRPG's when they are like Kingdom Hearts and Star Ocean. I hate them when they are turn-based like FF. Those are just my opinions though. | |
I have never really been a fan of JRPGs myself, it's the over-the-top combat and light show where everything is shiny and/or half naked... Makes me feel guilty playing it, plus gives me a migrain :s | |
Actually, I'm pretty sure that "I was bored before the five hour mark" is indeed an accurate criticism of a game if it bores you before the five hour mark. This is neither a negative nor a positive, it's a matter of perception. There's been nothing in a Final Fantasy game since VI that is capable of hooking me to play it. So I don't play them. Because my time is much too valuable to wait for a game to "get good". If someone asked me today if they should play FF VII, for example, I'd tell them quite specifically "No, it's boring early on." | |
A professional reviewer, or even a barely professional one, plays a game much longer than that, no matter his *personal* feelings of boredon, because, you know, it's a job, and playing the game extensively ensures the quality of the work done reviewing in. Sorry, but playing a game that extensive only for 5 hours flies in the face of professionalism, and is pretty much inexcusable.
LOL sure. Sorry mate, but a "dry explanation of what the dodge move does" can convey that the game is unintuitive (by the way the game is difficult, but not unintuitive at all) all right, actually it conveys it better. Yathzee's way is exclusively for the lulz, and he never refrained omitting details or giving misleading information in order to achieve it.
Sorry, there are plenty respectable and professional journalists that disagree with me. But you know, those actually play the games before reviewing them.
But that isn't a problem with God of War 3, right? Oops... | |
And what someone whose job is to make jokes about games while sharing his personal opinion? Because, you know, that's what his job is. He's not a reviewer. I have no intention on playing FFXIII, but that's not because of what Yahtzee said. I have no intention on playing FFXIII because Square and Enix both stopped making games that interested me two generations ago. You enjoyed FFXIII, quite a lot, cheers. My favourite game is one that I'm told ad infinitum is boring as well. But you going around trying to defend its honor doesn't mean it'll put out. Let the other people have their entertainment. You got yours, by enjoying the game, right? | |
Given that he feels the need to write a quite lenghty article like the one that stemmed this thread in order to try and defend his "views", I guess he doesn't really agree with you.
More power to you. This doesn't make their games bad, or less good. Epic Games basically never made a single game that interested me. This doesn't turn them in a bad developer, they're simply not for me. | |
7.99 for a book by Yahtzee? My interpretation of that is it will be as short as the instructions on toilet paper packaging, or will be of a quality normally attributed to said paper after use. Where`s my wallet? | |
THANK YOU for mentioning Chrono Trigger in that list. It's about time that it gets the recognition that it deserves. | |
Abriael: I realized that as we started focusing on the individual points of each other's arguments I kinda lost track of my original point. I don't think cinematics should never be used. They definitely have their place in video games. It's just irritating when a story-centric game concentrates the entire narrative into non-interactive sequences. I like good stories, so that would definitely be my main reason for buying a game like FFXIII. Unfortunately, there's very little story progression during the interactive parts of the game. Now, I have no problem with mixed media, but why not include more story elements in the gameplay as well? What's making them hold back? I get that they think cinematics are the more emotionally powerful technique (which is something I disagree with, but whatever), but why not include thematic development in the interactive parts too? I get that they're basically having me play through the action sequences of the story, but I've been doing that for ten years now, and there are plenty of other games that let me do that and more. You mentioned that our disagreement is just a matter of taste. Well, after thinking about it a little more, yeah, I guess you're right. Like I said earlier, it's no skin off my back if someone thinks Transformers is the epitome of cinematic bliss. I still think that my sense of taste is better though. You can say that I'm trying to "impose" my ideas about good game design on other people, but everyone thinks their sense of taste is the best. Heck, even you do this when you say that cinematics are more emotionally resonant than narrative gameplay. So in short, I don't really see what the problem is here. I agreed with a point that Yahtzee had about the game, but like I mentioned before I pretty much agree with you that he's not professional in his reviews. You accuse me of trying to trying to impose my tastes on other people, but honestly I don't see how someone's supposed to explain why they don't like something without doing that. What's more you keep saying we just have different tastes, but if that's true why keep trying to argue instead of just agreeing to disagree? I just don't get what you're trying to do here. Ah well, in any case there were a few more quotes of yours I wanted to address that didn't get covered above.
Actually, I would never say that because menus by their very nature are interactive =)
Yup, we agree =)
This reminds me of a rumor I heart about a certain man who couldn't make it as a director, so now he fills disks with his own ego as a game designer... =)
I'm pretty sure I didn't say "player controlled storylines" because that's not what I'm talking about. If I did, I apologize for the confusion. In any case, there are plenty of gameplay sequences that are just as emotionally involved as the best cinematics, so I don't really see how you can say that and only a sentence later accuse me of not realizing that different people prefer different methods.
Ahh Kojima... Well, I'd definitely agree with you that he's a great game developer, but I have to say that he's a pretty bad film director. Unless you count cinematics to be a part of game design, in which case I think he's a mediocre developer. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT | |
He's neither a reviewer or a critc. He is a comedian that has a hobby of playing games in a half-assed fashion, then posting about said experience as well his recent entrepreneurial endeavors *cough*shameless-advertising*cough*.
You can't accurately review or criticize something that you don't fully experience. It's like if someone went into a movie theater, blindfolded themselves for half of the film, and then attempted to write an accurate account of that portions visuals.
Not only that, but he doesn't even finish games and at times doesn't even play more than 10% of it (See Demon's Souls, FFXIII, etc.) yet reviews them. Har har, he reviewed 5 hours of a 50 hour game, har har. That's like reviewing 12 minutes of a two hour movie, or 80 pages of an 800 page novel.
I compare Yahtzee to a movie critic suffering from ADHD, that hates every genre but one, and has the odd habit of reviewing things that no one cares about.