inu-kun: Well looking in the web for reviews for Disgaea 3, I noticed that once again the scores were pathetic and not equivalant to what the review itself said. I wonder why big sites constantly give JRPG games that are not from a famous series (I.E. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest) such low scores. NOTE: please don't start a debate about RPG quality, there are plenty of good games if you look behind the obvious choices.
1. When is a 70-85 average a "pathetic score"? This isn't high school geometry, 70-80 is an above average score for a game, and most reviewers will say that. 50-60 is "average", 30-40 "bad", and "pathetic" really doesn't come into play until around 10-20. But of course this is the age when "best game evar" is anything above a 95 and anything below 80 is "broken".
B. Excluding Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest doesn't make a convincing argument. That's like saying apart from the hair on my head and all of my body hair I'm bald.
III. You seriously want to have a discussion about why JRPGs get "bad scores" but quality is off the table? Are you trying to skew opinions? Do you want all of us to agree with you? Fine. RARGH! Reviewers hate JRPGs for no reason other than personal bias! We must burn down the offices of every gaming magazine and website and establish a new world order in our own image! Viva la revolution!
(I'm assuming this is not a rhetorical question) Yes, 78 is pathetic, it is better than disgaea 1 and 2 which are amongst the best games in the genre, the game should hace gotten at least 95 (but it didn't because it is not an FPS). Also, Tales of Vesperia got a crappy score, though it doesn't seem to be too bad. BTW, I've seen a trailer to disgaea 3 and the graphics look signifacantly better than disgaea 2.
This is SNES graphics which is sad.
Other reasons why it didn't get a 95
gamespot:
The Bad
* Somehow turns your PS3 into a PS2 * Still features an absolutely atrocious camera * Less accessible than ever for someone new to the series * Not enough Prinnies, dood.
I hate graphic-bitches, seeing a pixel alone shouldn't downgrade a game's score by 20 points!
Also, the chrono trigger referance is because today every site puts this game in their top ten, even though the graphics and battle system are old (hypocracy anyone?).
And last, FPS might not mean good score, but a mediocre hype-filled shooting game will ALWAYS get more than 90!
Ugh, you aren't seeing the logic here. Chrono Trigger, when it was released, was one of the best games (graphically as well) around. That was on the SNES in America. That was...a long, long time ago.
The point is, games are pretty much required to be more and more visually appealing as technology advances. If graphics didn't matter, why would we even have PS3's and 360's? HD? Blu-ray? In fact, why not just play your super awesome JRPG in a text based form? Who needs graphics at all, right?
Edit: Also, any kind of turn based combat is getting old. People are becoming more and more accustomed to "real time" combat in their RPGs. Oblivion, Mass Effect, KotOR, Half Life, etc.
inu-kun: I hate graphic-bitches, seeing a pixel alone shouldn't downgrade a game's score by 20 points!
Also, the chrono trigger referance is because today every site puts this game in their top ten, even though the graphics and battle system are old (hypocracy anyone?).
And last, FPS might not mean good score, but a mediocre hype-filled shooting game will ALWAYS get more than 90!
See other reasons from gamespot (that gave it a 75) and some actually care about graphics wouldn't not caring be a bias too?
No hypocrisy since its the Top Ten for its time. Like Star Wars 4-6 special effects are amazing for its time
Now your just crazy since Blacksite is mediocre,was hyped and got scores to reflect it.
inu-kun: Well looking in the web for reviews for Disgaea 3, I noticed that once again the scores were pathetic and not equivalant to what the review itself said. I wonder why big sites constantly give JRPG games that are not from a famous series (I.E. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest) such low scores. NOTE: please don't start a debate about RPG quality, there are plenty of good games if you look behind the obvious choices.
1. When is a 70-85 average a "pathetic score"? This isn't high school geometry, 70-80 is an above average score for a game, and most reviewers will say that. 50-60 is "average", 30-40 "bad", and "pathetic" really doesn't come into play until around 10-20. But of course this is the age when "best game evar" is anything above a 95 and anything below 80 is "broken".
B. Excluding Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest doesn't make a convincing argument. That's like saying apart from the hair on my head and all of my body hair I'm bald.
III. You seriously want to have a discussion about why JRPGs get "bad scores" but quality is off the table? Are you trying to skew opinions? Do you want all of us to agree with you? Fine. RARGH! Reviewers hate JRPGs for no reason other than personal bias! We must burn down the offices of every gaming magazine and website and establish a new world order in our own image! Viva la revolution!
I'll answer you in order: 1. No one will buy a game that have a score less than 70 let alone one with 60, scores for games are different for ones of movies, because only 70+ means worth playing, and 80+ means excellent, regarless what gamespot writes.
2 (or B?). Dragon quest and Final fantasy will ALWAYS get a good score, else the fanboys will leave the site and they'll get less money for commercials, it's like if Halo 4 comes out and it would be an abomination, but will STILL get a 90+ score, beside the Final Fantasy games aren't the best JRPG series in existence in the last years the series itself is very mediocre (FF12 was horrible but somehow got about 90).
3 (or C?, or III? I give up). I mean don't write something like "ALL JRPGS SUCK BALLZ", there are good and bad JRPG like in every other genre, but regardless the good ones will get less than they deserve because they are fairly unknown, it is not my problem if you never played a good RPG in your life.
EDIT: In the latest top ten games ever in IGN, the original Mario game was first place, REGARDLESS of better looking and played games after it, how when it comes to Mario the rules don't apply? (THAT'S the hypocricy)
inu-kun: I hate graphic-bitches, seeing a pixel alone shouldn't downgrade a game's score by 20 points!
Also, the chrono trigger referance is because today every site puts this game in their top ten, even though the graphics and battle system are old (hypocracy anyone?).
And last, FPS might not mean good score, but a mediocre hype-filled shooting game will ALWAYS get more than 90!
First off, graphics don't always matter in a game, but if a developer creates something that can easily run on a console from two or three generations ago then they're obviously doing it as a cost cutting measure. I almost never complain about graphics, but if they're so bad they distract me while playing I'm not going to look at the game favorably.
I'll answer you in order: 1. No one will buy a game that have a score less than 70 let alone one with 60, scores for games are different for ones of movies, because only 70+ means worth playing, and 80+ means excellent, regarless what gamespot writes.
2 (or B?). Dragon quest and Final fantasy will ALWAYS get a good score, else the fanboys will leave the site and they'll get less money for commercials, it's like if Halo 4 comes out and it would be an abomination, but will STILL get a 90+ score, beside the Final Fantasy games aren't the best JRPG series in existence in the last years the series itself is very mediocre (FF12 was horrible but somehow got about 90).
3 (or C?, or III? I give up). I mean don't write something like "ALL JRPGS SUCK BALLZ", there are good and bad JRPG like in every other genre, but regardless the good ones will get less than they deserve because they are fairly unknown, it is not my problem if you never played a good RPG in your life.
EDIT: In the latest top ten games ever in IGN, the original Mario game was first place, REGARDLESS of better looking and played games after it, how when it comes to Mario the rules don't apply? (THAT'S the hypocricy)
EDIT: In the latest top ten games ever in IGN, the original Mario game was first place, REGARDLESS of better looking and played games after it, how when it comes to Mario the rules don't apply? (THAT'S the hypocricy)
Okay. Mario was the greatest game of all time because of what it was when it came out. It was graphically superior and the gameplay was well above anything else at the time. It single handedly brought video games in the millions of people's homes and brought a product recognition to Nintendo that could rival any product in history. It probably is one of, if not the, greatest game of all time.
If Super Mario Bros. was released RIGHT NOW it would be the worst game of all time because it is terrible by today's standards. The same thing applies to movies, music, cars, and everything else. You clearly just don't understand the concept of "classics", but how can I expect you to when you're raving about games that look ten years old?
I'm guessing because of the culture differences JRPG's get lower scores. Then again I don't trust game review sites, especially Gamespot. (Digimon World, 5.1?! REALLY? I fucking loved that game, I still play it sometimes these days.) Yeah, they're probably hypocrites for keeping the fanboys happy but hey, society is filled with hypocrisy. I don't let it get to me.
I'll answer you in order: 1. No one will buy a game that have a score less than 70 let alone one with 60, scores for games are different for ones of movies, because only 70+ means worth playing, and 80+ means excellent, regarless what gamespot writes.
2 (or B?). Dragon quest and Final fantasy will ALWAYS get a good score, else the fanboys will leave the site and they'll get less money for commercials, it's like if Halo 4 comes out and it would be an abomination, but will STILL get a 90+ score, beside the Final Fantasy games aren't the best JRPG series in existence in the last years the series itself is very mediocre (FF12 was horrible but somehow got about 90).
3 (or C?, or III? I give up). I mean don't write something like "ALL JRPGS SUCK BALLZ", there are good and bad JRPG like in every other genre, but regardless the good ones will get less than they deserve because they are fairly unknown, it is not my problem if you never played a good RPG in your life.
EDIT: In the latest top ten games ever in IGN, the original Mario game was first place, REGARDLESS of better looking and played games after it, how when it comes to Mario the rules don't apply? (THAT'S the hypocricy)
1. Maybe except movie based games, but a 60 "little more than average" is given to most of the shitty games in existence.
2. There are exceptions, but I still give FF12 as a prime example, also even the most die hard square enix fans wish to forget the existence of eleven.
3. Gamespot bashed your example, and I said "lately" and furthermore did not refer to them all.
4. If the original mario is still today the best game in existence (regardless of his impacts), than the gaming industry is working too hard.
1. Maybe except movie based games, but a 60 "little more than average" is given to most of the shitty games in existence.
2. There are exceptions, but I still give FF12 as a prime example, also even the most die hard square enix fans wish to forget the existence of eleven.
3. Gamespot bashed your example, and I said "lately" and furthermore did not refer to them all.
4. If the original mario is still today the best game in existence (regardless of his impacts), than the gaming industry is working too hard.
1. You really don't read the reviews do you 60 is not shitty and there are many games below 60 just look at metacritic-what platform-all games.
2."ALWAYS" does not have exceptions and if 78 is pathetic there are many FF game that are pathetic.
3."Lately"? It just came out. Use metacritc that has a 81 for it. (I used Gamespot because it gave a middle ground review for disgea 3)
Right, because if Chrono Trigger were released right now it would be a decade behind in graphics and gameplay. Why shouldn't it get a lower score because of this? A game like Disgaea 3, with outdated graphics, can't possibly be deserving of a 90+ review. Sure, it might be great at everything else, but graphics alone count for something. It'd be like writing an awesome essay, but using the wrong format or something
When Chrono Trigger gets rereleased later this year, review sites will spunk their collective pants over it, the graphics will, if they are mentioned at all, probably be praised for holding up so well. This is Future Truth.
A 78 average is pathetic? (Heck I wouldn't be surprised if some points were knocked of for SNES graphics on The PS3)
When Final Fantasy Tactics can be rereleased with similarly outdated graphics, but also more significantly being an inferior game in every respect to Disgaea (Disgaea 3 eschews graphics in favour of having a truly staggering amount of content), and get an average ten points higher, simply because it is a Final Fantasy game, yes, this is pathetic.
because they aren't very good. well at least in the opinion of western audiences. in my experience the only people who truly like them (except for the mainstream ones) here are the people who look exactly like Visual kei band member.
When Final Fantasy Tactics can be rereleased with similarly outdated graphics, but also more significantly being an inferior game in every respect to Disgaea (Disgaea 3 eschews graphics in favour of having a truly staggering amount of content), and get an average ten points higher, simply because it is a Final Fantasy game, yes, this is pathetic.
No, but there's the same generation gap between it's release now on the PSP and originally as an early PS1 game as there is between the PS2 and the PS3 (Disgaea 2 and 3).
GloatingSwine: No, but there's the same generation gap between it's release now on the PSP and originally as an early PS1 game as there is between the PS2 and the PS3 (Disgaea 2 and 3).
Hmm for some reason I get the feeling SNES graphics(Which is bad for a PS2 game as well) is more acceptable on a handheald with PS1.5 graphics not a System with The Cell processor and Blu-Ray.
Nothing has really changed game-play wise in the last 5-10 years with JRPG's. I think with reviewing and scores of say 9 and 10's in a game that reviewer has been "wowed" and they've or something relatively new/different to genre or it's all been masterfully done.
If you're just going to make a solid game (Lost Odyssey comes to mind) that doesn't add anything new or expand in anyway. And is all done well, but not masterfully. Then the game is going to get a 7-8.
And JRPG's of late have all pretty much fallen into this lull of innovation.
And quite frankly, if you think Disgaea has "SNES Graphics" you need new eyes. Or you have a vastly rose tinted set of memories of what the SNES was actually capable of. Even the very best looking SNES games like Star Ocean looked nothing like as good as even Disgaea 1.
If you're just going to make a solid game (Lost Odyssey comes to mind) that doesn't add anything new or expand in anyway. And is all done well, but not masterfully. Then the game is going to get a 7-8.
But if you do exactly the same and call it Final Fantasy, it gets 9-10, see: Final Fantasy X.
GloatingSwine: And quite frankly, if you think Disgaea has "SNES Graphics" you need new eyes. Or you have a vastly rose tinted set of memories of what the SNES was actually capable of. Even the very best looking SNES games like Star Ocean looked nothing like as good as even Disgaea 1.
Hmm well then please tell me how Disgea 3 is up to other games on PS3 like MGS4 or Resistance 1.
Even Final Fantasy Tactics for PSP can't compete with Old PSP games like Daxter or the powerhouse of God of War Or Final Fantasy 7 Crisis Core.
I disbelieve, Tales of Vesperia, Final Fantasy IV DS, Lost Odyssey, Eternal Sonata have ALL reviewed well, Disgaea's problem is that it's such a niche game. Pretty much just for the OCD, level grind types.
There really isn't enough at the start of this thread to start a meaningful discussion. In fact, it's better to discussion *why* it isn't meaningful: 1: Inu-kun are using *one* example as your proof that games are lowly rated, I may as well use Big Rigs to prove that racing games are slated 2: Bias is used as the reason, yet there has been no attempt are comparison with the Japanese scores to see if they are higher 3: As has been mentioned, a lot of JRPGs *are* highly rated over here, Eternal Sonata is green, as is Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon
Reason 2 is my biggest reason, no-one has even checked if they are higher in Japan, and without that evidence, I refuse to divulge my oinion further, as should anybody else that wants proper discussion.
REDH4MMER: Nothing has really changed game-play wise in the last 5-10 years with JRPG's. I think with reviewing and scores of say 9 and 10's in a game that reviewer has been "wowed" and they've or something relatively new/different to genre or it's all been masterfully done.
If you're just going to make a solid game (Lost Odyssey comes to mind) that doesn't add anything new or expand in anyway. And is all done well, but not masterfully. Then the game is going to get a 7-8.
And JRPG's of late have all pretty much fallen into this lull of innovation.
You have clearly been playing the wrong RPG's.
There are four basic reasons JRPG's get low scores.
1. The ratings systems aren't really designed with RPG's in mind.
2. Many of the people reviewing them don't really like RPG's.
3. Many of the people reviewing them are graphics whores.
4. This is the big one, games get better scores when the company buy's ad's on the site.
Najos: Like I said earlier, most JRPGs get bad reviews simply because most of them are bad games.
Actually, you're wrong.
The quality of the game in judging JRPGs has never been a real issue, even if some are bad and some aren't, it's the simple fact that JRPGs are made in Japan for Japanese audiences, and we're not Japanese. Neither are the reviewers who judge JRPGs that we read.
Cultural boundaries are far thicker than you might imagine, and many things that are considered good in Japanese culture are considered bad in American culture as well as vice-versa. For example, Halo 3 is outrageously popular here in America but over in Japan not only is it not popular, but the Xbox 360 is the least popular current-gen console over there as opposed to it being the most popular over here.
JRPGs play on a sense of fun that appeals to Japanese audiences, the humor is subtle and very Japanese, the references, storylines, character styling, are all Japanese. JRPGs are only brought over to America because it's a cheap way to milk more money out of gamers like me who adore JRPGs and who happen to get the jokes and understand the storyline and, for example with the new Disgaea, the homage to the original game by retaining similar graphics which gives it a cute and quirky design. Not to receive 10/10 scores.
It's not some big secret, it's not some hidden bias, it's merely the fact that what makes one person laugh hysterically makes another person scratch their head in puzzlement.
inu-kun: Well looking in the web for reviews for Disgaea 3, I noticed that once again the scores were pathetic and not equivalant to what the review itself said. I wonder why big sites constantly give JRPG games that are not from a famous series (I.E. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest) such low scores. NOTE: please don't start a debate about RPG quality, there are plenty of good games if you look behind the obvious choices.
Actually if you check metacritic... Disgaea 1 : 84 AVG Disgaea 2 : 84 AVG Disgaea 3 : 78 AVG How are those low scores? That's actually pretty good given the amount of opinions floating out there. And the reason why I believe Disgaea 3 has received a lower average than the others is because according to the general consensus, it's not really a new game. Yes there have been improvements to the game, but expansion packs do the same thing for twenty dollars. The graphical prowess of the ps3 is not utilized to even half it's capacity, the game still looks like it belongs on the ps1. Look at Stella Deus, that was a huge improvement over Disgaea's graphics, and it was on the ps2. On the third iteration of the game they haven't done anything at all.
And JPRGS do receive good scores, if they're good. Same with games made from any country, they just have to fulfill the right criteria.
Najos: Like I said earlier, most JRPGs get bad reviews simply because most of them are bad games.
Actually, you're wrong.
The quality of the game in judging JRPGs has never been a real issue, even if some are bad and some aren't, it's the simple fact that JRPGs are made in Japan for Japanese audiences, and we're not Japanese. Neither are the reviewers who judge JRPGs that we read.
Cultural boundaries are far thicker than you might imagine, and many things that are considered good in Japanese culture are considered bad in American culture as well as vice-versa. For example, Halo 3 is outrageously popular here in America but over in Japan not only is it not popular, but the Xbox 360 is the least popular current-gen console over there as opposed to it being the most popular over here.
JRPGs play on a sense of fun that appeals to Japanese audiences, the humor is subtle and very Japanese, the references, storylines, character styling, are all Japanese. JRPGs are only brought over to America because it's a cheap way to milk more money out of gamers like me who adore JRPGs and who happen to get the jokes and understand the storyline and, for example with the new Disgaea, the homage to the original game by retaining similar graphics which gives it a cute and quirky design. Not to receive 10/10 scores.
It's not some big secret, it's not some hidden bias, it's merely the fact that what makes one person laugh hysterically makes another person scratch their head in puzzlement.
I understand what you mean about the cultural differences and how it would be a little hard to understand the story, but that doesn't change the fact that a bad game from a different culture is still a bad game, and a good game is a good one. Look at Starcraft, created in America, filled to the brim with American versions of sci-fi and culture. You even have an american marine with a cigar sticking out of his mouth. It became a phenomenon throughout the world, and even a national sport of Korea. Then you have Initial D, no real story, but pure racing fun down mountain roads (to those who like it) in the arcades. It was fun and simple, it had a bad design choice of cars being made of soap, but other than that it was a pretty darn good game. Cultural differences don't change the reviews by that much, bad design choices do.
JRPGs other than the FF series get bad reviews nowadays because hating everything from Japan is the new "cool" thing to do, but they can't risk giving the FF games bad scores because there are too many people who still like them, and mainstream game review sites will gladly whore out their review scores in hopes of losing as few readers as possible.
Lack of bribe money from non-American game developers obviously helps too.
Berkll: And JPRGS do receive good scores, if they're good. Same with games made from any country, they just have to fulfill the right criteria.
The problem is, the criteria changes from culture to culture, as does the definition of what is a good game.
Bad camera, bullshit difficulty, bad menus, no innovation from previous iterations, constant glitches, bad controls... most of the criteria for bad game design choices are pretty much the same.
The point, again, is not "low scores" it is "relatively lower scores than the exact same game would have gotten if the box said Final Fantasy on the front".
1. When is a 70-85 average a "pathetic score"? This isn't high school geometry, 70-80 is an above average score for a game, and most reviewers will say that. 50-60 is "average", 30-40 "bad", and "pathetic" really doesn't come into play until around 10-20. But of course this is the age when "best game evar" is anything above a 95 and anything below 80 is "broken".
B. Excluding Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest doesn't make a convincing argument. That's like saying apart from the hair on my head and all of my body hair I'm bald.
III. You seriously want to have a discussion about why JRPGs get "bad scores" but quality is off the table? Are you trying to skew opinions? Do you want all of us to agree with you? Fine. RARGH! Reviewers hate JRPGs for no reason other than personal bias! We must burn down the offices of every gaming magazine and website and establish a new world order in our own image! Viva la revolution!