Unskippable: Final Fantasy 13

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

You know, FF characters have it so easy these days. Would have been that at one time, the player would have gotten to control them while fighting on a train. But, no. Not anymore. Now the fancy dancy cut scene has done all the work for them.

How boring. FF games really remind me of that "spectacle fighter" genre.

Which is a shame because I enjoy FFVII and IX was okay.

CmdrGoob:

Yes, exactly, that's a very good summation. The other problem is tone - it sort of seems like they want to set up the feeling of an exciting, dangerous conflict but then they literally switch between people fighting and dying to Snow and his bros joking around and Vanille giggling and saying chiao. The tone is just all over the place, making it very hard to establish a tonal feeling of serious, dangerous conflict, and therefore creating tension. This is further undermined by the fact that if you want to keep up with what all this stuff means you have to pause and read datalog and that further undermines the pacing of a supposedly action packed sequence. It just falls so flat. Poorly written and directed, in my opinion.

Edit: Yet another problem is that by jumping right into showing Lightning beating up the soldiers like its nothing is that it looks so easy it's like there's no danger at all.

It's like absolutely everything in that section ends up not just failing to build tension but actively undermining it, and then end result - boring.

It would seem that we're in agreement on all points.

Also, I'm pretty sure Final Fantasy XIII is supposed to be a game, which implies interactivity. Yet here we get to see the playable characters doing all sorts of things without us being able to do it ourselves. Yathzee made a good point about this in his review I say.

Making the cinematic a playable scene would provide tension without having to make greater amounts of effort, since it gives the steering wheels into the hands of a player who I'm pretty sure doesn't have an invincible health bar.

The tone of the game appears to be stretched out on too many different areas. It just becomes a mess that can reach pretty bizarre if not out-right disturbing levels at times. The "hero" characters appear more like phsycotic terrorists then anything else for crying out loud!

I was honestly expecting, and kind of hoping, that this was another fake out.

But still, there was some plenty funny moments in it. Someone above mentioned a blood sugar monitor joke that I don't remember, have to go back and look for that... sounds like a good joke at least.

Calling his Chocobo, Chocobo makes about as much sense as Mordeci calling his Bloodwing, Bloodwing.

Firia:
I'm kinda surprised you stayed away from the whole Chocobo-nesting-in-Fro thing, but glad that you did focus on its size. :D I was so hooked on "Why is there a chick in the mans HAIR" to notice anything else.

Usually a guy is in the chicks hair. Haha bad pun...

Why in the hell did she not use the gun on that robot thing?

What am I saying this is FF it doesnt have to make sense...

This is actually bittersweet. On the one hand, I love steampunk elements in a fantasy setting. On the other hand, I think sci-fi settings are pretty cool, too. I don't know whether I'm more impressed by the overall prettiness of the cutscene or saddened by the lack of magic/ mystic elements. The chocobo chick was cute, though.

This has become Final Science-Fiction! Why didn't I see it before!

Tons of laughs, as always. Keep it up guys!

I am disappoint. There was no collective groan when Sahz declared that he was 'too old for this'

Usual great Unskippable episode: this pair are really good at comedic momentum over the course of a video, I think. I would list my favourite lines, only it would end up with me making half of a transcript. Definitely better than my own running commentary when I first watched the opening cutscene.

---

mechanixis:
This...actually makes me want to play FFXIII. Not so much as a game but as a movie with some battles.

Well, you're in luck: that's what it is, really. ^_^

---

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

Leaving aside the point that you don't actually NEED the in-game encyclopedia for FFXIII:
Robert Jordan. J.K. Rowling. J.R.R. Tolkien.

Oh look, I just named three (3) of the most notable fantasy authors ever.

---

Osirisgod16:
I spent my entire easter break beating this game.... And I didn't have fun at all, 72 hours and not a single ounce of fun

You...you seriously played 72 hours despite not EVER having fun? Why didn't you take Yahtzee's approach and ditch after 5 or so hours of joyless gameplay?

I'm not really a fan of the gameplay (I'm working my way through the game for the characters TBQH--even though I'm not the biggest fan of most of them, either), but I've had the occasional fun moment with it--and I don't think I'd still be playing if I hadn't.

---

ProjectTrinity:

"Is she...Is she having TOO much fun fighting? 0_o;;"

Yes. Yes she is.

---

TenSARS:
I am disappoint. There was no collective groan when Sahz declared that he was 'too old for this'

They were busy discussing the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow the proper size of Chocobo chicks.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

Leaving aside the point that you don't actually NEED the in-game encyclopedia for FFXIII:
Robert Jordan. J.K. Rowling. J.R.R. Tolkien.

I don't know anything about Jordan... but Rowling and Tolkien? Those are kid book. I own Lord of the Ring and not once needed to look up an encyclopedia. If you didn't stop at the word Balrog, you could have read a description(A Freaking FIRE DEMONS). And for Rowling, everything is explain to Harry, and subsequently, to you. She's the author of the most famous saga aim at children. And her spell are just one step above Zetana's with her spelling the effect backward: sufood elbidercni! Dude, that post may suggest you are the missing link between the man and the ape that we are looking for... or you don't know what you are talking about. But hey, 70% of gamer did say WTF after the first 10 hours... and saying that since you finished it and now know is, to me, the equivalent as knowing what the constitution of the crap i took 2 hour ago. Have fun with that piece of Shit clogging some space in your brain.

TenSARS:
I am disappoint. There was no collective groan when Sahz declared that he was 'too old for this'

I don't think it would have been funny since everybody did it when they first play the game. I know i cringed when i first heard that.

Minor correction Akalistos: Rowling used Latin for her spells. The grammar was probably wrong.

And at least that gentleman of African Ethnicity didn't commandeer a vehicle without the owner's consent.

No wait, I think he did.

Yelchor:

CmdrGoob:

Edit: Yet another problem is that by jumping right into showing Lightning beating up the soldiers like its nothing is that it looks so easy it's like there's no danger at all.

It's like absolutely everything in that section ends up not just failing to build tension but actively undermining it, and then end result - boring.

It would seem that we're in agreement on all points.

Making the cinematic a playable scene would provide tension without having to make greater amounts of effort, since it gives the steering wheels into the hands of a player who I'm pretty sure doesn't have an invincible health bar.

Excellent points, both of you. I even like the Final Fantasy franchise but this opening scene is just all over the place. Perhaps being able to PLAY as Lightning while taking out the guards would have been a good way to throw people into the game.

On the other hand, from a story perspective, I think the whole problem is we're thrown into a very complicated, action heavy beginning with no context (at this point) or emotional attachment to our party. Hell, we're not even sure WHO our party consists of according to this scene. I assume it's just Lightning and the other guy. I would say most people have an inkling that FF games have deep storylines so you already have an audience just WAITING to be introduced into a brand new world and party, ready to fight monsters, care about characters and probably save the world. This...just leaves a lot of "what?" Starting off with confusion isn't the best way to hook in the player.

This is not to say you can never have an action heavy opening. I had never played any of the Uncharted games before, and I watched someone play the beginning of Uncharted 2. O_o That is probably the best opening of any game I've ever seen. AND YOU GET TO INTERACT WHILE IT'S GOING ON.

Akalistos:

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

Leaving aside the point that you don't actually NEED the in-game encyclopedia for FFXIII:
Robert Jordan. J.K. Rowling. J.R.R. Tolkien.

I don't know anything about Jordan... but Rowling and Tolkien? Those are kid book. I own Lord of the Ring and not once needed to look up an encyclopedia. If you didn't stop at the word Balrog, you could have read a description(A Freaking FIRE DEMONS). And for Rowling, everything is explain to Harry, and subsequently, to you. She's the author of the most famous saga aim at children. And her spell are just one step above Zetana's with her spelling the effect backward: sufood elbidercni! Dude, that post may suggest you are the missing link between the man and the ape that we are looking for... or you don't know what you are talking about. But hey, 70% of gamer did say WTF after the first 10 hours... and saying that since you finished it and now know is, to me, the equivalent as knowing what the constitution of the crap i took 2 hour ago. Have fun with that piece of Shit clogging some space in your brain.

Technically, the Harry Potter series shifts from 'children's books', to young adult by the time of Half-Blood Prince/Deathly Hallows. The Lord of the Rings is also not a "kid book": you might be thinking of The Hobbit there. Also, as TenSARS pointed out, Rowling's spells generally were based (sometimes rather loosely) around Latin/various other old languages. The fact that you claim they were just "spelling the effect backward" makes me think that either you never read the series, or you just have an atrocious memory.

You didn't need an encyclopedia for LotR? Great. Plenty of people also didn't need an encyclopedia for FFXIII (and for those who did, there's one right in the game, easily accessed), which was kind of my point: there HAVE been plenty of books which have caused some readers to go "so, is there an encyclopedia for all this?" (including the three authors I mentioned, especially Tolkien and Jordan--fortunately they all DO have such resources available in one form or another), but not everyone will consider an encyclopedia to be necessary. The fact that all three of those series have considerably better storytelling than FFXIII (in my opinion, obviously) is another point entirely. Sheer complexity is not in and of itself a bad thing, and frankly neither is the occasional viewer confusion resulting from same.

Oh, and try getting a writing style that doesn't make you look like an uneducated moron before you insult other people's intelligence.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

Leaving aside the point that you don't actually NEED the in-game encyclopedia for FFXIII:
Robert Jordan. J.K. Rowling. J.R.R. Tolkien.

I don't know anything about Jordan... but Rowling and Tolkien? Those are kid book. I own Lord of the Ring and not once needed to look up an encyclopedia. If you didn't stop at the word Balrog, you could have read a description(A Freaking FIRE DEMONS). And for Rowling, everything is explain to Harry, and subsequently, to you. She's the author of the most famous saga aim at children. And her spell are just one step above Zetana's with her spelling the effect backward: sufood elbidercni! Dude, that post may suggest you are the missing link between the man and the ape that we are looking for... or you don't know what you are talking about. But hey, 70% of gamer did say WTF after the first 10 hours... and saying that since you finished it and now know is, to me, the equivalent as knowing what the constitution of the crap i took 2 hour ago. Have fun with that piece of Shit clogging some space in your brain.

Technically, the Harry Potter series shifts from 'children's books', to young adult by the time of Half-Blood Prince/Deathly Hallows. The Lord of the Rings is also not a "kid book": you might be thinking of The Hobbit there. Also, as TenSARS pointed out, Rowling's spells generally were based (sometimes rather loosely) around Latin/various other old languages. The fact that you claim they were just "spelling the effect backward" makes me think that either you never read the series, or you just have an atrocious memory.

LORD OF THE RING WAS MADE FOR KID BY TOLKIEN! Where did you get that impression. He built that world because he created story for his children. It's all explain in the preface of the book. As for the spell, Yeah i know... but like i said it only one step from the DC character Zatanna.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatanna )She's the one that spell backward. You didn't even read anything?

Quorothorn:
You didn't need an encyclopedia for LotR? Great. Plenty of people also didn't need an encyclopedia for FFXIII (and for those who did, there's one right in the game, easily accessed)

They Shouldn't in a normal story and most people didn't know what was happening before the 20 to 25 hours mark. I'm at 20 (but to be fair, i grinded a bit for pieces of stuff to upgrade weapons. So technically, I'm more at the 14 hours mark.) As for Lord of the Ring, there a description of a new creature each time they meet one. They did it with the Uruk-hai, The Treants, The Balrog. Even the Trolls and Orc and stuff like elves are clearly describes. It written as if Froddo Baggins had written the story after all the events. There even a little bit where it's Froddo's Friend Gamwise (the gardener that followed him through the story) and leave him the book. Pick that damn trilogy before saying anything more, otherwise... you'll look as a dumbass.

Quorothorn:
which was kind of my point: there HAVE been plenty of books which have caused some readers to go "so, is there an encyclopedia for all this?" (including the three authors I mentioned, especially Tolkien and Jordan--fortunately they all DO have such resources available in one form or another)

Dude, There's no Encyclopedia. Or if it is, look who wrote it. IT NEVER WAS THE AUTHORS BUT FAN OF THE SERIES. It's like the Picture book you get from MGS Peace Walker Special edition. It some dude that pick the drawing and concept art, print it and sold that to you for 10$. Do you think you need to look at that book to know who's talking? No. You don't. That's the difference. The last one that argue with me on that, i paste the comment of all the people like me that said the same thing. He didn't even responded to this. You won't either.

Quorothorn:
but not everyone will consider an encyclopedia to be necessary. The fact that all three of those series have considerably better storytelling than FFXIII (in my opinion, obviously) is another point entirely. Sheer complexity is not in and of itself a bad thing, and frankly neither is the occasional viewer confusion resulting from same.

I'll give to Cesar what's belong to Cesar. Yes, complexity done right make the story more interesting. The point i'm making is that the game or story need to "hook you" in and not shut you out. There so many WTF once and throw before closing the book/game/movie. It's not about explaining the stuff up right away either. In most horror flick (Slasher movie to be exact), you never see or look at the killer until the every end. Their power aren't well explain nor is the sources of said power. But they engage the public by making the main character likable. Here, they are just cliché black guy Sash, cliché action chick Lightning... ect.

Quorothorn:
Oh, and try getting a writing style that doesn't make you look like an uneducated moron before you insult other people's intelligence.

I never insulted you. I insulted the game. If you feel offended because i don't like something that you clearly consider like the second or first cumming(Pun intended) of your god, you shouldn't talk to nobody, Hide in the wood with your copy of the game and try to make a religion out of it.

hellswarmglow:
This is actually bittersweet. On the one hand, I love steampunk elements in a fantasy setting. On the other hand, I think sci-fi settings are pretty cool, too. I don't know whether I'm more impressed by the overall prettiness of the cutscene or saddened by the lack of magic/ mystic elements. The chocobo chick was cute, though.

I don't think you have played it that much, if not at all. But the chick get on the nerve after a while... like a cat that jump on you each time you try to sleep. Well, to be fair, everything got on my nerve after a while.

MatParker116:
These were some of the questions I had after four bloody hours of that garbage:
What's a Cocoon?
What's a faicie?
What's an icie?
Who's the blond douche in the trenchcoat?
Who's the black guy?
Who are the people in hoods?
What's the Purge?
Why did the Giant thing turn a lake into crystal?
What do the fourteen year old's have to do with anything?
What the fucking hell is going on?

some of them i was still woundering after 35 hours into the dam game

because i refused to read all that codex crap they gave me i want it to be explained as a good part of the story not spend half my time reading i only rented it for a week i didnt have time for all that dam reading and after a week i didnt want it so well done ff13 you ruined the game for me i might buy you when you are $20

Akalistos:
LORD OF THE RING WAS MADE FOR KID BY TOLKIEN! Where did you get that impression. He built that world because he created story for his children. It's all explain in the preface of the book. As for the spell, Yeah i know... but like i said it only one step from the DC character Zatanna.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatanna )She's the one that spell backward. You didn't even read anything?

Yes...and that story for his children was THE HOBBIT. He wrote up The Lord of the Rings because there was huge demand for a sequel to The Hobbit, which initially wasn't fully connected to his overarching world (as can be seen by the fact that he made various changes to The Hobbit as new editions were published, to bring it into line so to speak). Considering the number of adults I've seen who take the stance that LotR is too long/complicated for them to wade through, I think calling it a "children's book" is considerably off the mark. If you want to use the "technical" terms, The Hobbit is children's fantasy, and The Lord of the Rings is epic/high fantasy.

And I would think that drawing on various old languages for words or phrases to use as spells is more than "one step" from simply spelling effects backwards.

Akalistos:
They Shouldn't in a normal story and most people didn't know what was happening before the 20 to 25 hours mark. I'm at 20 (but to be fair, i grinded a bit for pieces of stuff to upgrade weapons. So technically, I'm more at the 14 hours mark.) As for Lord of the Ring, there a description of a new creature each time they meet one. They did it with the Uruk-hai, The Treants, The Balrog. Even the Trolls and Orc and stuff like elves are clearly describes. It written as if Froddo Baggins had written the story after all the events. There even a little bit where it's Froddo's Friend Gamwise (the gardener that followed him through the story) and leave him the book. Pick that damn trilogy before saying anything more, otherwise... you'll look as a dumbass.

Seriously, try writing in actual English next time: it's rather difficult to read through your posts when your style is this bloody atrocious. Also, they're Ents, not "Treants": you seem to have confused LotR for D&D there. And it's Samwise Gamgee, not "Gamwise". (Also, Frodo has only one "d".)

For the record, I first read The Lord of the Rings (which, incidentally, is one story in three volumes, not a standard trilogy) over a decade ago, and have read it regularly since. I know it pretty decently, on the whole. And the fact that my fellow Tolkien fanboys still fight over whether or not the Balrog has true wings shows that Tolkien wasn't always as complete and definitive in his descriptions as you seem to think. For that matter, the elves are never actually described as pointy-eared in the books: did you know that? And no one will ever know exactly who or what Tom Bombadil is, or what happened to the Entwives. I could go on in this vein for some time: suffice it to say that Arda is a huge world with only a certain portion of information actually fully filled in for the casual reader.

And hey, did you know that quite a few people accuse Tolkien of spending too much time describing things? It's true (same goes for Jordan). Some people like their storytelling cake made one way, others an entirely different way.

Akalistos:
Dude, There's no Encyclopedia. Or if it is, look who wrote it. IT NEVER WAS THE AUTHORS BUT FAN OF THE SERIES.

The Lord of the Rings has the Appendices; every Wheel of Time book to date is accompanied by a Glossary, plus there's an official Encyclopedia for the series as well (and I believe that one is in the works for Harry Potter as well).

Akalistos:
I'll give to Cesar what's belong to Cesar. Yes, complexity done right make the story more interesting. The point i'm making is that the game or story need to "hook you" in and not shut you out. There so many WTF once and throw before closing the book/game/movie. It's not about explaining the stuff up right away either. In most horror flick (Slasher movie to be exact), you never see or look at the killer until the every end. Their power aren't well explain nor is the sources of said power. But they engage the public by making the main character likable. Here, they are just cliché black guy Sash, cliché action chick Lightning... ect.

See, I suspect there's actually something somewhat resembling an intelligent point in there somewhere...but it's too much bother to parse it because of how horrible your grammar is. You really ought to fix that.

Akalistos:
I never insulted you. I insulted the game. If you feel offended because i don't like something that you clearly consider like the second or first cumming(Pun intended) of your god, you shouldn't talk to nobody, Hide in the wood with your copy of the game and try to make a religion out of it.

Yes, you did insult me, actually (mildly ineptly, but that's not the point). Don't lie, we can all see your previous post. Specifically, this bit: "Dude, that post may suggest you are the missing link between the man and the ape that we are looking for". I'm fairly certain that comparing someone to an ape is usually an insult.

Also, I feel you need to take a look at this bit of my first post in this topic again: "I'm not really a fan of the gameplay (I'm working my way through the game for the characters TBQH--even though I'm not the biggest fan of most of them, either), but I've had the occasional fun moment with it--and I don't think I'd still be playing if I hadn't." I believe I stated quite clearly there that I currently have mixed feelings about FFXIII, both as a story and as a gaming experience. I suspect I still won't be entirely sure how much I actually liked it even when I've finished it.

So to recap: you have little to no idea what you're talking about, on several levels; your writing style is about as awkward, incorrect, and incomprehensible as any I have ever seen; and you are a liar (albeit a bad one). You do the Internet proud, I'm sure.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
LORD OF THE RING WAS MADE FOR KID BY TOLKIEN! Where did you get that impression. He built that world because he created story for his children. It's all explain in the preface of the book. As for the spell, Yeah i know... but like i said it only one step from the DC character Zatanna.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatanna )She's the one that spell backward. You didn't even read anything?

Yes...and that story for his children was THE HOBBIT. He wrote up The Lord of the Rings because there was huge demand for a sequel to The Hobbit, which initially wasn't fully connected to his overarching world (as can be seen by the fact that he made various changes to The Hobbit as new editions were published, to bring it into line so to speak). Considering the number of adults I've seen who take the stance that LotR is too long/complicated for them to wade through, I think calling it a "children's book" is considerably off the mark. If you want to use the "technical" terms, The Hobbit is children's fantasy, and The Lord of the Rings is epic/high fantasy.

And I would think that drawing on various old languages for words or phrases to use as spells is more than "one step" from simply spelling effects backwards.

You know, if I had to take the word of the editor or your words about this, i'll take the editor. He got more credibility than a random guy or girl on a forum.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
They Shouldn't in a normal story and most people didn't know what was happening before the 20 to 25 hours mark. I'm at 20 (but to be fair, i grinded a bit for pieces of stuff to upgrade weapons. So technically, I'm more at the 14 hours mark.) As for Lord of the Ring, there a description of a new creature each time they meet one. They did it with the Uruk-hai, The Treants, The Balrog. Even the Trolls and Orc and stuff like elves are clearly describes. It written as if Froddo Baggins had written the story after all the events. There even a little bit where it's Froddo's Friend Gamwise (the gardener that followed him through the story) and leave him the book. Pick that damn trilogy before saying anything more, otherwise... you'll look as a dumbass.

Seriously, try writing in actual English next time: it's rather difficult to read through your posts when your style is this bloody atrocious. Also, they're Ents, not "Treants": you seem to have confused LotR for D&D there. And it's Samwise Gamgee, not "Gamwise". (Also, Frodo has only one "d".)

You know, you f'ing xenophobe, I never hidden the fact that i'm not english. It a second language. Instead of... i don't know... Pointing what i did wrong or correcting it, you just insult me. Your officially a f'ing racist Cunt.

As for the Names, they are assumptions. I never read LORD OF THE RING but more like Le Seigneur des Anneaux. So, In this translation, name are different. I tried to remember them in english, but it pretty much what i remember it from the last time i saw the movie in english.... a few years ago.

Quorothorn:
For the record, I first read The Lord of the Rings (which, incidentally, is one story in three volumes, not a standard trilogy)

That much is true, but who doesn't call it the LoTR Trilogy nowadays.

Quorothorn:
over a decade ago, and have read it regularly since. I know it pretty decently, on the whole. And the fact that my fellow Tolkien fanboys still fight over whether or not the Balrog has true wings shows that Tolkien wasn't always as complete and definitive in his descriptions as you seem to think.

And there are people that boycott Sonic 4 because his ears aren't the same. There's endless debate over female dwarfs and if they got chest hairs. Like some religious or public figure, there are people that push thing to far. So? What does the image of a FIRE DEAMON (it's not a typo.) look like to you. Yet it's easier to understand than a Fal'cie.

Quorothorn:
For that matter, the elves are never actually described as pointy-eared in the books: did you know that?

No, Frodo made allusion to their physique in the book. It's at the point where he divulge his fascination for the Elves. We can argue that he didn't saw them yet but it's inclined that Bilbo did tell him about it.

Quorothorn:
And no one will ever know exactly who or what Tom Bombadil is,

It's explain in another story since he's not that relevant to what goes on in Lotr. If you want to know, he's the original makers of the rings of power. He went insane because... well, look at Golum. He went to the same ordeal, only he was in the presence of Sauron and not the ring. Funny enough, That bit made me so curious that i search for the other stories.

You can say all you want that it's isn't explain. Since the book is written as if Frodo has written it, i don't believe it qualify. The difference being in FF13, the character know more of what's going on then the actual players.

Quorothorn:
or what happened to the Entwives. I could go on in this vein for some time: suffice it to say that Arda is a huge world with only a certain portion of information actually fully filled in for the casual reader.

They died. I know it would have been interesting, but like i said, it all through Frodo point of view. The bit that aren't were told to him by other character. If ?Entmale? had told the Pippin and ?Merry?, i would have been in the book. My guest it, when you are carried in a giant hand, you don't enrage the one carrying you.

Quorothorn:
And hey, did you know that quite a few people accuse Tolkien of spending too much time describing things? It's true (same goes for Jordan). Some people like their storytelling cake made one way, others an entirely different way.

I can't argue with you there.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
Dude, There's no Encyclopedia. Or if it is, look who wrote it. IT NEVER WAS THE AUTHORS BUT FAN OF THE SERIES.

The Lord of the Rings has the Appendices; every Wheel of Time book to date is accompanied by a Glossary, plus there's an official Encyclopedia for the series as well (and I believe that one is in the works for Harry Potter as well).

And none were written either by Tolkien for the LoTR universe or JK Rowling for the Harry Potterverse (actual term I encountered while taking to fans)

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
I'll give to Cesar what's belong to Cesar. Yes, complexity done right make the story more interesting. The point i'm making is that the game or story need to "hook you" in and not shut you out. There so many WTF once and throw before closing the book/game/movie. It's not about explaining the stuff up right away either. In most horror flick (Slasher movie to be exact), you never see or look at the killer until the every end. Their power aren't well explain nor is the sources of said power. But they engage the public by making the main character likable. Here, they are just cliché black guy Sash, cliché action chick Lightning... ect.

See, I suspect there's actually something somewhat resembling an intelligent point in there somewhere...but it's too much bother to parse it because of how horrible your grammar is. You really ought to fix that.

Funny, I talk to my friend on the escapist and all of them understand me. Seem like you are fishing for excuses.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
I never insulted you. I insulted the game. If you feel offended because i don't like something that you clearly consider like the second or first cumming(Pun intended) of your god, you shouldn't talk to nobody, Hide in the wood with your copy of the game and try to make a religion out of it.

Yes, you did insult me, actually (mildly ineptly, but that's not the point). Don't lie, we can all see your previous post. Specifically, this bit: "Dude, that post may suggest you are the missing link between the man and the ape that we are looking for". I'm fairly certain that comparing someone to an ape is usually an insult.

No, it a fallacies. I think it's call False Dichotomy, in which you give the choice between something ridiculous and absurd or your point of view, failing to submit other points of views. That said, You believe you are the missing link, you may want to check yourself in.

Quorothorn:
Also, I feel you need to take a look at this bit of my first post in this topic again: "I'm not really a fan of the gameplay (I'm working my way through the game for the characters TBQH

TBQH?

Quorothorn:
--even though I'm not the biggest fan of most of them, either), but I've had the occasional fun moment with it--and I don't think I'd still be playing if I hadn't." I believe I stated quite clearly there that I currently have mixed feelings about FFXIII, both as a story and as a gaming experience. I suspect I still won't be entirely sure how much I actually liked it even when I've finished it.

Good for you. I had a major case of D.G.A.F. syndrome. I had to play it with all the Back catalog of podcast LRR had done since 2006.

Quorothorn:
So to recap: you have little to no idea what you're talking about, on several levels; your writing style is about as awkward, incorrect, and incomprehensible as any I have ever seen; and you are a liar (albeit a bad one). You do the Internet proud, I'm sure.

And now, you are attacking me. Well, it's a fallacies, but you are still attacking me.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

That count as an insult.

Akalistos:
You know, if I had to take the word of the editor or your words about this, i'll take the editor. He got more credibility than a random guy or girl on a forum.

No, you just misunderstood what the editor was saying. Again, it was The Hobbit that was actually the story for his kids (a story originally only loosely connected to Arda), and The Lord of the Rings followed after it. So the far-back origins of LotR becoming a published work are from stories he told his kids, but LotR itself was not one of those stories. Am I explaining this correctly?

Akalistos:
You know, you f'ing xenophobe, I never hidden the fact that i'm not english. It a second language. Instead of... i don't know... Pointing what i did wrong or correcting it, you just insult me. Your officially a f'ing racist Cunt.

Technically, I DID just point out what was incorrect in that section. I didn't insult you there (I insulted you later, specifically by calling you a liar).

And I don't actually care too much if it's a second language for you: the style is still terrible. Also, I think you need to look up "xenophobe" and "racist", because they don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

I am, however, inclined to 'give you a pass', so to speak, on the following...

Akalistos:
As for the Names, they are assumptions. I never read LORD OF THE RING but more like Le Seigneur des Anneaux. So, In this translation, name are different. I tried to remember them in english, but it pretty much what i remember it from the last time i saw the movie in english.... a few years ago.

Fair point, translations are wonky that way. My apologies.

Akalistos:
That much is true, but who doesn't call it the LoTR Trilogy nowadays.

True. But I will carry on reminding everyone that it was only split into three volumes because of the publisher nonetheless (and that Tolkien wanted "The Return of the King" to instead be titled "The War of the Ring"). Call it a literary tic for me.

Akalistos:
And there are people that boycott Sonic 4 because his ears aren't the same. There's endless debate over female dwarfs and if they got chest hairs. Like some religious or public figure, there are people that push thing to far. So? What does the image of a FIRE DEAMON (it's not a typo.) look like to you. Yet it's easier to understand than a Fal'cie.

Really? I thought the Fal'Cie weren't TOO difficult to grasp as a concept. Regardless, my point was that this is a legitimate debate over a physical trait of one of Tolkien's creatures--so just because he provides some sort of description (the Balrog being a creature of shadow and flame, natch), doesn't mean that description is going to be complete or beyond confusing some readers, which you seemed to think it was. Remember, this whole spiel happened because I brought up that complicated/vague elements are a common part of fantasy (and narrative art in general), and not something that FFXIII is somehow unique in.

Akalistos:
It's explain in another story since he's not that relevant to what goes on in Lotr. If you want to know, he's the original makers of the rings of power. He went insane because... well, look at Golum. He went to the same ordeal, only he was in the presence of Sauron and not the ring. Funny enough, That bit made me so curious that i search for the other stories.

Someone botched a translation or something (or just misled you), because Tolkien explicitly said that Bombadil's nature was a mystery. And Bombadil had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any of the Rings of Power. A group of Elves in Eregion made them under the direction of Sauron (in disguise as "Annatar" at the time, because seriously, would you take fashion accessory advice from a guy calling himself the Dark Lord?).

Akalistos:
You can say all you want that it's isn't explain. Since the book is written as if Frodo has written it, i don't believe it qualify. The difference being in FF13, the character know more of what's going on then the actual players.

Yes...but the characters have lived in their world all their lives: we've just arrived. Of course they know more than us. Not every story is going to focus in around a newcomer of some sort so that the viewer can be introduced to much of the setting at the same time as the main character. If you don't like the "in medias res" thing that FF seems to like so much, that's great. But it is a legitimate storytelling technique, and the important matters are explained.

Akalistos:
They died. I know it would have been interesting, but like i said, it all through Frodo point of view. The bit that aren't were told to him by other character. If ?Entmale? had told the Pippin and ?Merry?, i would have been in the book. My guest it, when you are carried in a giant hand, you don't enrage the one carrying you.

Treebeard (the Entmale, as rather nicely you put it) himself says "They did not die! I never said died. We lost them, I said. We lost them and we cannot find them."

This was one of several things Tolkien wondered about a lot. You are, however, correct that he eventually decided that he thought the Entwives were destroyed with their gardens back at the end of the Second Age. Of course, his exact words prefacing this declaration, IIRC, were "I think", because that's how Tolkien tended to operate: he only definitively nailed down what he pretty much had to, shifting everything else about in his mind and papers as he went.

Akalistos:
I can't argue with you there.

Heh.

Well, me, I like descriptions of flowers and trees and outfits and great halls. Can't get enough of them.

Akalistos:
And none were written either by Tolkien for the LoTR universe or JK Rowling for the Harry Potterverse (actual term I encountered while taking to fans)

Tolkien wrote the Appendices himself, actually. You're right about Rowling (though again, I have heard--hearsay--that an official guide to the series will be coming out in the near-future). ...I mean, unless you count Quidditch Through the Ages/Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them: but I don't think many (or indeed any) of us would count them as such.

Akalistos:
Funny, I talk to my friend on the escapist and all of them understand me. Seem like you are fishing for excuses.

No: rather, I had grown tired of properly parsing your posts at that point.

Shall I address the section in question directly, then? Here: yes, a hook (in whatever form it takes) is vital in all writing, you're completely correct there. However, your opinion on the likability of the first two main characters we see is just that: your opinion. Are they stock characters? It's arguable, of course, but even if they are, that doesn't automatically render them unlikable. Some stocks became such for good reason: they work.

Furthermore, the characters are not required to be the story's "hook". For example, have you considered that the setting/plot questions several people have brought up might actually be one of the "hooks"? Sheer curiosity is as good a way as any to get people to keep moving forward in a story.

Akalistos:
No, it a fallacies. I think it's call False Dichotomy, in which you give the choice between something ridiculous and absurd or your point of view, failing to submit other points of views. That said, You believe you are the missing link, you may want to check yourself in.

Have you taken Phil. 111 recently? Because I seem to recall doing that (defining things in terms of logical fallacies and the like) for a couple weeks when I was taking that class. Or do you just like that sort of thing in general? I'm just curious: feel free to ignore that question. Anyway, I don't see how "no, I wasn't insulting you, I was just using a false dichotomy, with both of the given 'options' being rather insulting" excuses you.

Akalistos:
TBQH?

It stands for "to be quite honest": one of those little Internet abbreviations, you see.

Akalistos:
Good for you. I had a major case of D.G.A.F. syndrome. I had to play it with all the Back catalog of podcast LRR had done since 2006.

Nice.

But that doesn't excuse the fact that you assumed that I was a fanboy of this game even though an earlier post of mine stated pretty clearly that I was of mixed opinion on it. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

Akalistos:
And now, you are attacking me.

Yes, I was.

Quorothorn:

Technically, I DID just point out what was incorrect in that section. I didn't insult you there.

Yes, you did. Hey, if you just point out what's wrong, i won't mind. But saying I need to STFU because i'm not a english major is pretty irritating. That said, i can correct some mistake and you can too, here a example.

Akalistos:
As for the Names, they are assumptions. I never read LORD OF THE RING but more like Le Seigneur des Anneaux. So, In this translation, name are different. I tried to remember them in english, but it pretty much what i remember it(But that's all i could recall) from the last time i saw the movie in english.... a few years ago.

See the difference?

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
And there are people that boycott Sonic 4 because his ears aren't the same. There's endless debate over female dwarfs and if they got chest hairs. Like some religious or public figure, there are people that push thing to far. So? What does the image of a FIRE DEAMON (it's not a typo.) look like to you. Yet it's easier to understand than a Fal'cie.

Really? I thought the Fal'Cie weren't TOO difficult to grasp as a concept. Regardless, my point was that this is a legitimate debate over a physical trait of one of Tolkien's creatures--so just because he provides some sort of description (the Balrog being a creature of shadow and flame, natch), doesn't mean that description is going to be complete or beyond confusing some readers, which you seemed to think it was. Remember, this whole spiel happened because I brought up that complicated/vague elements are a common part of fantasy (and narrative art in general), and not something that FFXIII is somehow unique in.

Then, FF13 Fandom leaded me astray. I said that Fal'cie are nothing more than doomed slave and that they should just commit suicide, if it's that bad. I was call a f*cking retard. That, and i also said those giant mechanical tattoo machine... the L'cie i believe. They should give massive reward to completed task, they would easily get more help and result that way and i was call a f*cking moron. Also, you get the added benefit of having a strong task force for though missions. Missions in plural form because they could do more then one. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure whatever happen in the game end up giving them a "get uncrystalify free" card at the end. But i wouldn't follow the orders of a thing that will kill me when it's done.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
It's explain in another story since he's not that relevant to what goes on in Lotr. If you want to know, he's the original makers of the rings of power. He went insane because... well, look at Golum. He went to the same ordeal, only he was in the presence of Sauron and not the ring. Funny enough, That bit made me so curious that i search for the other stories.

Someone botched a translation or something (or just misled you), because Tolkien explicitly said that Bombadil's nature was a mystery. And Bombadil had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any of the Rings of Power. A group of Elves in Eregion made them under the direction of Sauron (in disguise as "Annatar" at the time, because seriously, would you take fashion accessory advice from a guy calling himself the Dark Lord?).

First, i would. As long as he doesn't dress me as a Emo Neo from the MATRIX. Secondly, I don't know, the reasoning behind it was sound. Why wouldn't the ring work on him otherwise. As long as i don't see the quote directly from Tolkien, I'll stick with that... but I'll resume my search for now.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
You can say all you want that it's isn't explain. Since the book is written as if Frodo has written it, i don't believe it qualify. The difference being in FF13, the character know more of what's going on then the actual players.

Yes...but the characters have lived in their world all their lives: we've just arrived. Of course they know more than us. Not every story is going to focus in around a newcomer of some sort so that the viewer can be introduced to much of the setting at the same time as the main character. If you don't like the "in medias res" thing that FF seems to like so much, that's great. But it is a legitimate storytelling technique, and the important matters are explained.

In bite size... And too little, too late.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
They died. I know it would have been interesting, but like i said, it all through Frodo point of view. The bit that aren't were told to him by other character. If ?Entmale? had told the Pippin and ?Merry?, i would have been in the book. My guest it, when you are carried in a giant hand, you don't enrage the one carrying you.

Treebeard (the Entmale, as rather nicely you put it) himself says "They did not die! I never said died. We lost them, I said. We lost them and we cannot find them."

Yeah, did you remember for how long they "lost" them? I know Treebeard and the Ents live for centuries. (they share the same longevity as a normal tree. Some Canadian Sequoya can live for 150 years olds) And they all disappear like that and none return. Basically, they are dead. It's like your lover goes with her family to for a week three years ago and they never came back. Police, Search Parties, Everything would have been call off a long time ago.

Quorothorn:
This was one of several things Tolkien wondered about a lot. You are, however, correct that he eventually decided that he thought the Entwives were destroyed with their gardens back at the end of the Second Age. Of course, his exact words prefacing this declaration, IIRC, were "I think", because that's how Tolkien tended to operate: he only definitively nailed down what he pretty much had to, shifting everything else about in his mind and papers as he went.

Hen hen... Seem that you are a bigger Fan of LoTR then me. Beside, i don't really care about the Ents anyways.

Quorothorn:

No: rather, I had grown tired of properly parsing your posts at that point.

Shall I address the section in question directly, then? Here: yes, a hook (in whatever form it takes) is vital in all writing, you're completely correct there. However, your opinion on the likability of the first two main characters we see is just that: your opinion. Are they stock characters? It's arguable, of course, but even if they are, that doesn't automatically render them unlikable. Some stocks became such for good reason: they work.

Furthermore, the characters are not required to be the story's "hook". For example, have you considered that the setting/plot questions several people have brought up might actually be one of the "hooks"? Sheer curiosity is as good a way as any to get people to keep moving forward in a story.

Surprisingly, i did. But then again. Why should i care. That the basic of story telling. If you don't care for anything inside a story, you will just stop reading/watching/playing it.

Quorothorn:

Akalistos:
Good for you. I had a major case of D.G.A.F. syndrome. I had to play it with all the Back catalog of podcast LRR had done since 2006.

Nice.

But that doesn't excuse the fact that you assumed that I was a fanboy of this game even though an earlier post of mine stated pretty clearly that I was of mixed opinion on it. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

You put me on the spot. Your Reply were rather... angry toward what i said. I can understand when people disagree about something and letting me know why they feel differently. But on that subject, i was rather violently attacked by fanboy that think that this is the second or first or whatever coming. Your post didn't seem to be any different, so i put you in the same bag.

Akalistos:
And now, you are attacking me.

Yes, I was.[/quote]
So it's One all. I'll think of something good and fire back later.
:D

Akalistos:
Yes, you did. Hey, if you just point out what's wrong, i won't mind. But saying I need to STFU because i'm not a english major is pretty irritating. That said, i can correct some mistake and you can too, here a example.

No, I insulted your writing style. And if you feel that attacks on your style are attacks on you (which is, honestly, human nature), there's actually a very simple way to fix that: improve your writing style.

Neither did I tell you to shut up: my exact words were "try writing in actual English next time" ("next time" showing that I was assuming you would post again here). Was I harsh/mildly hyperbolic in my description of your writing style? Yes, yes I was. Of course, you had just implied that I'd never read LotR and said "otherwise...you'll look as a dumbass". Which goes back to what I've been getting at by attacking your writing style: if you had written that with proper grammar it wouldn't be so hysterically ironic. Writing "you'll look as a dumbass" just makes you look like, well, a dumbass, which I'm pretty certain you're not.

Akalistos:
Then, FF13 Fandom leaded me astray. I said that Fal'cie are nothing more than doomed slave and that they should just commit suicide, if it's that bad. I was call a f*cking retard. That, and i also said those giant mechanical tattoo machine... the L'cie i believe. They should give massive reward to completed task, they would easily get more help and result that way and i was call a f*cking moron. Also, you get the added benefit of having a strong task force for though missions. Missions in plural form because they could do more then one. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure whatever happen in the game end up giving them a "get uncrystalify free" card at the end. But i wouldn't follow the orders of a thing that will kill me when it's done.

Wait, I think I just figured something out: you may have flipped the fal'Cie and l'Cie in your mind. The fal'Cie are the big guys (the "giant mechanical tattoo machine" as you put it--nice phrasing there, by the way); the l'Cie are the humans who have been branded their servants.

And you have a good point about the issues with what the fal'Cie do to people whom they brand l'Cie: I've seen this discussed in the game, actually, and I suspect some revelation is incoming for the late-game.

Akalistos:
First, i would. As long as he doesn't dress me as a Emo Neo from the MATRIX. Secondly, I don't know, the reasoning behind it was sound. Why wouldn't the ring work on him otherwise. As long as i don't see the quote directly from Tolkien, I'll stick with that... but I'll resume my search for now.

Clearly, you are more open-minded on that first point than I.

On the second point, your wish for a Tolkien quotation on this subject is my command to go looking through his Letters. Here you go, from a letter he wrote in April of 1954 to a Naomi Mitchison:

"As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history. Many readers have, for instance, stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

(Funny side-point: this is actually the same letter in which he speculates on the fate of the Entwives.)

If you wish for further relevant quotations I can of course go look for them: I can honestly say it would be my pleasure.

Akalistos:
In bite size... And too little, too late.

That is a matter of opinion.

Akalistos:
Yeah, did you remember for how long they "lost" them?

At the time Merry and Pippin met Treebeard, about three thousand years, if my memory does not fail me: they went missing around the time of the Last Alliance.

Akalistos:
Beside, i don't really care about the Ents anyways.

Fair point: the Ents are quite a bit off-topic in this thread.

Akalistos:
Surprisingly, i did. But then again. Why should i care. That the basic of story telling. If you don't care for anything inside a story, you will just stop reading/watching/playing it.

Indeed. If that is what you did, that's what you did, and more power to you for it. But others are not obligated to react to FFXIII in the same way you did.

Akalistos:
You put me on the spot. Your Reply were rather... angry toward what i said. I can understand when people disagree about something and letting me know why they feel differently. But on that subject, i was rather violently attacked by fanboy that think that this is the second or first or whatever coming. Your post didn't seem to be any different, so i put you in the same bag.

I see. That is a reasonable explanation: we've all seen the escalation that occurs in online debates. However, I should point out that my first post was mildly sarcastic at worst: you were the first one to display real hostility in our interaction.

Akalistos:
So it's One all. I'll think of something good and fire back later.
:D

"Conversations aren't contests!" "OK. A point for you, but I'm still ahead."

(Wait, have you had the pleasure of reading Calvin & Hobbes?)

In an attempt to get us back on-topic: this little exchange you and I have been having began when I noticed a part of a post of yours in which you remarked that "no author would get away" with doing what Final Fantasy XIII does--that is, having a notable portion of the audience go "I think I need an encyclopedia for all this". My immediate thought when I saw that was "wait, though, Wheel of Time's seriously bloody complicated, and it's not like Potter and LotR are considered simple by most people who read them. And y'know, the Kushiel series needs a giant Dramatis Personae at the start of each installment, and...hmm, I'd better try mentioning this".

For that matter, I should have initially pointed out that Kingdom Hearts has Jiminy's Journal, something that fulfills a similar role to that of the Datalog in FFXIII. Resident Evil 5 has a Library, including a giant "History of Resident Evil" segment. Again, this really isn't unique to FFXIII. The fact of the matter is, lots of people get away with this kind of approach (heck, as a series Final Fantasy had used it several times before XIII: X and VII spring to my mind). You see what I mean?

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

You've never read "A Clockwork Orange" I take it.

A full encyclopedia was available in the preface to explain much of the terminology used.

Oh, and I never used the datalogs in FFXIII and understood everything just find. Just watched the cutscenes; they explain anything you need to know.

Quorothorn:
In an attempt to get us back on-topic: this little exchange you and I have been having began when I noticed a part of a post of yours in which you remarked that "no author would get away" with doing what Final Fantasy XIII does--that is, having a notable portion of the audience go "I think I need an encyclopedia for all this". My immediate thought when I saw that was "wait, though, Wheel of Time's seriously bloody complicated, and it's not like Potter and LotR are considered simple by most people who read them. And y'know, the Kushiel series needs a giant Dramatis Personae at the start of each installment, and...hmm, I'd better try mentioning this".

For that matter, I should have initially pointed out that Kingdom Hearts has Jiminy's Journal, something that fulfills a similar role to that of the Datalog in FFXIII. Resident Evil 5 has a Library, including a giant "History of Resident Evil" segment. Again, this really isn't unique to FFXIII. The fact of the matter is, lots of people get away with this kind of approach (heck, as a series Final Fantasy had used it several times before XIII: X and VII spring to my mind). You see what I mean?

I didn't say that they shouldn't have a encyclopedia. I like, for example, the bestiary that are in game like FF12. I think it's a great way to flesh out this universe. My problem come when you actually need to look at it to know what's going on. I'm not the only one. In a podcast, some of the LRR crew (Jeremy, Kathleen and Matt) all had the same problem at first. Some of the post here said the same thing. Maybe you roll with it and got to a point where they sit you down and tell you everything. Unfortunately, i couldn't. It didn't made me care at all about anything... beside murdering Vanille and Hope by...
[This phrase was remove after a warning from the Moderator, unfortunately. I thought it was a clever way to kill someone and you won't get to read it.]
...While i hear their scream of agony. Beside, most of the Data-logs and encyclopedia in game are meant to put you right back in the game. It's really frustrating when you play a long and epic game only to came back later and forgot what needed to be done.

s69-5:

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

You've never read "A Clockwork Orange" I take it.

A full encyclopedia was available in the preface to explain much of the terminology used.

Oh, and I never used the datalogs in FFXIII and understood everything just find. Just watched the cutscenes; they explain anything you need to know.

Yeah, because they talk about psychology and give the reader the real term. I didn't got into my second semester in psychology but from what i heard, we would have read it... which would have made me very happy and lazy. (I owned it.)

Also, I already explain myself and i don't really care if you look it up or not. I won't copy/paste for your sake.

Akalistos:
I didn't say that they shouldn't have a encyclopedia. I like, for example, the bestiary that are in game like FF12. I think it's a great way to flesh out this universe. My problem come when you actually need to look at it to know what's going on. I'm not the only one. In a podcast, some of the LRR crew (Jeremy, Kathleen and Matt) all had the same problem at first. Some of the post here said the same thing. Maybe you roll with it and got to a point where they sit you down and tell you everything. Unfortunately, i couldn't. It didn't made me care at all about anything...

I am sorry that the game failed in this way for you (and the others who were left going "wait what"), by the way. I know you can't properly convey tone across the Internet, but it is a shame.

Akalistos:
beside murdering Vanille and Hope by...
[This phrase was remove after a warning from the Moderator, unfortunately. I thought it was a clever way to kill someone and you won't get to read it.]

Oh well, what can you do. (Admittedly, I've never been partial to even creative descriptions of carnage, so I suppose it is just as well.)

Akalistos:
...While i hear their scream of agony. Beside, most of the Data-logs and encyclopedia in game are meant to put you right back in the game. It's really frustrating when you play a long and epic game only to came back later and forgot what needed to be done.

I believe I have experienced what you describe myself, though I can't name specifics off the top of my head. Very true.

---

s69-5:

Akalistos:
Not one author would get aways with a single book that need a full encyclopedia to understand.

You've never read "A Clockwork Orange" I take it.

A full encyclopedia was available in the preface to explain much of the terminology used.

Yeah, A Clockwork Orange was...different. V. v. different. Not as different as Finnegan's Wake perhaps, but still.

Im at a loss to describe how truly dreadful that game looks.

Apparently the game gets better around 20 hours in...

...

...Riiiiight....

Personally, I enjoyed FFXIII. The writing was kinda iffy, and it was slow to start. I'll agree on that.

But it really sucks that a new main series FF installment can't be put out without a disproportionate backlash.

i still think this was their best episode:D probably this one-of-a-game experience helped a lot...

i dunno you guys. i figured everything out by chapter 3 and the only i needed to check the datalog about the 13 days, but only out of curiosity. have you considered that you're just being a bit unfair towards the plot on account of the perfectly linear gameplay?

Former Soldier with awesome Black side-kick attacking a train in a way that would have the local authorities see them as terrorists in a futuristic setting...Are you sure this isn't Final Fantasy VII? Final Fantasy VII even had the giant robot scorpion as an early boss!

I think "Final Fantasy" refers to the games always picking up in the third act of whatever the hell plot they're following. Anything that would have made it easier to follow was given to use in the first act, and in the second act we get the character development.

In the "Final" act, we just have to watch them jerk around while waiting for the credits to run.

And if some random chick has the training to defeat a train full of soldiers and a giant saw-scorprion, why aren't people like her hired to fight, instead of arming faceless stormtroopers with useless projectile weapons?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here