Discussion in 'Final Fantasy Discussion' started by APZonerunner, Nov 28, 2016.
Examples of said western RPG's that get free passes? Fallout 4, for example, is sitting at a 84.
I've heard Witcher III's combat is serviceable at best, but the scores don't reflect that. I'm also given to understand that Fallout 4 is a much more technically broken game than FFXV with even greater narrative flaws, and yet it still got a higher metascore.
The Witcher 3 sits at a 92 score on Metacritic. That game did pretty much everything right, except for the combat (I personally hated the combat, still do even with the newer controls). It's not a perfect game nor was it scored as such. So, the scores do certainly reflect that.
Fallout 4, like I've already said, has pretty much the same score as FFXV. And it definitely doesn't have greater narrative flaws.
But, how are those two games examples of what you describe when the scores do reflect that the reviewers had certain issues with the games?
Heck, I'd say that the problem lies with MGS V, which isn't a western game. That game scored way too high, because it only has awesome gameplay and pretty much nothing more (in my opinion).
Comparing goldfish to tigers. Completely different topics. The developers of Fall Out 4 tried to follow Mass Effect's pattern of playing as what first appears to be a blank slate avatar who suddenly gains extensive histories and character traits based on the options given that appear dramtaized through conflict, relationships, and such. People argue that root went nowhere near empathizing while the "role playing" was shallow because "consequences on how you decide to build your character really have no weight either" as one fan put it from Reddit. fall out like the elder scroll series is a more of a table top game in video game format. it asks you to use your imagination. the narrative conventions are different from how you would handle them in a full blown actual story. heck how you would examine them is different too when they aren't your own
I'm not comparing anything. Read the full discussion, mate.
While not exactly an rpg per se, one good example is GTA4, which got a 100 score for some reason.
I've played the game and enjoyed it somewhat, but the controls and mechanics in that game were terrible, and story dragged on for too long and was uninteresting. It practically became a chore for me to finish it and once I was done I never wanted to play it again.
How that game topped GTA San Andreas is beyond me but it scored 100 just because it was a GTA title. Free pass if I saw any.
I fully agree with GTA IV being scored too high. It's sitting at 98.. wth?
Ah so it dropped. Last time it was 100. Honestly seeing that made me sincerely question the scores people hand out in reviews, not just for FFXV but for any game for that matter.
It's obvious there is bias going on for any review, but for some titles you can really see the leeway and free pass mentality.
92 is about as close as any game comes to a perfect score nowadays, so, no, I don't think that score is properly reflective of a combat system that people generally either hate or put up with rather than enjoy.
From what I've read, the game basically abandoned everything that wasn't an excuse for more combat (which apparently isn't that great in and of itself) and made it impossible to make meaningful narrative choices even though the point of Fallout is to be able to find ways to do what you need to do in a way that makes sense for your character. Considering its pedigree, that's a much bigger problem than the story just being a bit bare-bones.
Even if it doesn't, though, there's still the problem of Bethesda games being legit broken instead of just having the usual open world jank. Like, I've heard that there were multiple game breaking bugs in Fallout 4 (that weren't patched out in a day one patch), and Skyrim is infamously buggy.
A game with terrible combat getting the highest scores out of pretty much anything and a game that's legit broken getting good scores are exactly what it looks like when scores don't reflect the issues the reviewers had with the games.
Well, that one's a problem too, but the reason for those scores are a lot more obvious in that case (ie support for Kojima and Konami's sketchy review practices making it way more difficult for reviewers to get a proper perspective on the game).
It's not really the same as the way Bethesda is consistently allowed to get away with technical incompetence.
No, people didn't either hate or simply put up with the combat of TW3. I gave you my opinion about its combat, I didn't share an objective fact. Tons of reviewers as well as the vast majority of the millions of fans the game has have no qualms with the combat at all. The combat of TW3 isn't at all something that can be objectively considered to be bad, and definitely not an argument to be used that the game should've scored lower than 92. That's nonsense, and that's coming from someone who dislikes that combat of TW3. A lot of people actually love and praise its combat. The only reason the combat is a talking point for the game, is because it's been THE game that's been talked about and all other games have been compared to in the past years. It's cool to hate and be hyperbolic about popular things.
I've had FF XV crash on me about 12 times in the 150ish hours I've put into it so far (playing on the Pro). I've never had Fallout 4 crash one me once (just like I'm sure there are examples of FO 4 being a train wreck for others). I think that both games are rated too high (I'd rate FO at a 7 and XV at a 7,5 at most), but the discussion at hand was that western RPG's are getting away with more, which is false when both XV and FO 4 are rated about the same right now. We can make a list of (technical) issues for both games and we can come up with a substantial list for both. There's no way that you're going to make the case that FO 4 deserves to be rated lower while not claiming the same for XV. Skyrim was a completely finished and cohesive game as well and to this day is one of the most popular ones. You can't even begin to bring that up as an example. Technical issues are present in any open world game, just like XV has. XV isn't being harshly criticized due to that, but because they "forgot" to put large chunks of the story in the game.
TW3 does not have objectively terrible combat at all. Not even remotely close. You lose any amount of credibility when you claim that. And even if the combat was serviceable at best (my opinion, which is subjective), that game does so many things so incredibly good that it puts XV to shame. If we apply your logic of criticizing a game so harshly for having merely one aspect of it being mediocre, than XV should be sitting around a 5 because it does many things mediocre. There are many things from TW3 that no other game can compare to. It set a new standard for RPGs.
You've turned this conversation into making very hyperbolic statements in order to exaggerate certain issues of other games in order to make a point. So, you either agree with me that multiple games - including XV - are rated too high due to the many issues they have, or you agree with the point that you can't compare certain issues directly across games and that you need to look at games as a whole. Because the alternative here is that you're trying to tell others that your subjective opinion of other games dictate that they've been rated too high, which adds nothing to the actual conversation at hand. Mind you, I never claimed that my opinion on these games are fact. I'm merely challenging the statement that western RPGs are being forgiven more flaws than Japanese ones are and I'm not seeing any (GTA IV and MGS V are not RPGs).
To make it clear: the issues with TW3 combat revolves around design choices. It's the same as with the many people who hate the combat in XV due to it not being turn-based. TW3 does not have a buggy or broken combat. What it does it does well. It's simply a style of combat that some people find too simple or too flashy, or find that you don't have enough direct control over the character. That's a deliberate design choice by the devs. It's not an objective flaw. It's something that the many fans actually love about the game (I dislike it). But that game does not have the many occasions that XV has for example in which a whole fight can be ruined due to awful camera controls. The fights that should've been the most epic ones are totally ruined for me due to absurd camera angles and behavior. That's something that's simply flawed, rather than a subjective gameplay mechanism.
Very interesting points coming from both sides.
Since I did contribute to this convo at the start, I'll clarify my stance to avoid any misunderstandings: I am skeptical of all review scores given to all games, be it either Western, Japanese, rpg or non rpg.
I've never come across a game score that I've particularly agreed with, and I'm guessing that's mostly got to do with different opinions, different emphasis on which aspects of a game is important or not, etc etc.
I've noticed that reviewers see games differently from people who are hardcore gamers, so that's another factor. It's like movie critics heavily praising a movie, but regular movie goers saying it was boring as sin.
Case in point is: reviews are rarely accurate (to me at least) which is why I'm not fond of the amount of power and sway they have when it comes to influencing public perception.
People are sheep and they go with the scores as if they're gospel - regardless of whether they're good or bad.
I'm of the thought that people should make up their own minds after having played the game and invested a lot of time into learning what the game had to offer in full.
Playing for two hours, skipping dialogue because "I just wanna play already hurry uuuuup", and not taking the time to learn the game disqualifies complaints. Unfortunately it's something I see a lot of people do.
For example, the magic in FFXV. "I don't know when to use magic... man this magic system sucks". It was clearly an intuitive and tactical choice when to use it. That was coming from a reviewed btw who played for more than 10 hours, couldn't do proper combat to save Noctis' life, and didn't even know that Iris was Gladio's sister despite the game shoving it in your face countless times.
Don't even get me started on the "too much water" critique by IGN...
These are the kind of people reviewing games. You gotta ask yourself, are these the kind of people I want to trust?
In conclusion: don't take reviews as gospel because they're hardly accurate. Don't listen to people's comments and exaggerated opinions online. Make up your own mind after playing. Don't allow yourself to get influenced by others opinions. Form your own.
I still maintain the argument that western titles are given more leeway in general.
We do have western companies reviewing western games after all. I'm sure there are behind the scenes stuff going down so that both parties walk away happy with the score being given.
That and the scores pretty much say it all.
I'd never claim that something subjective is objectively terrible, but I will say that, from what I've read on NeoGAF, almost no one says they actually like combat in W3 - even the defenders merely say it isn't bad. And when combat is the thing you're likely to spend most of your time doing, I'd think that a combat system that even the defenders don't enjoy all that much is a problem worth at least a full point out of ten being docked. (FFXV's combat, in contrast, can be polarizing, but plenty of people outright love it.)
As for Bethesda games, the reason I think they get off too lightly for their glitches is because, while some glitches are to be expected in any game, having to restart from the beginning due to a glitch making progress impossible is completely unacceptable. (There was one of those in XV prior to the Day One patch, but the patch both prevented it from happening and fixed it retroactively so it's a lot more forgivable.). I'd argue that any game that can erase all your progress in a way that isn't vanishingly rare should start at 7 and lose points from there.
Neogaf is pretty much the motherload of hyperboles. I mean, there's a reason why there are multiple posts about how hyperbolic NG is on there. It's become a meme.
So in any TW3 post you'll have the usual combat is horrible comments, with responses stating how typical such comments are of NG. That's far from some sort of metric to measure the combat of the game.
The combat of TW3 is also far from that which you do the most in the game. I think everyone will agree that TW3 is all about the narrative. It's a few steps away from being a visual novel .
But, like I've said, the combat has no outright flaws. There are simply subjective opinions about it. That's comparable to those who want turn-based combat in a FF game. TW3 doesn't suffer from camera controls that outright ruin multiple important set-pieces in the game, which can't be said about XV.
I can link you countless amount of posts on many boards, including my own comment, about how XV keeps crashing. Do a google search for "Final Fantasy XV crash". That doesn't mean that all copies of the game will crash under all circumstances. The same is true for FO 4.
I don't agree at all with western rpgs getting away with stuff that XV isn't. This will simply continue to be a subjective opinion about what you yourself consider to be more important in a game. There's a reason I couldn't finish TW3, while I did finish XV (twice). I enjoy the latter more, but I do however fully see how in general TW3 has done many things much better. Also, I hate Bethesda games in general. They're sandbox games meant to get lost in and do whatever, which has a giant market. I'm not a fan of that though. I like my classic FF and DQ kind of games. XV is the first open world game that I truly enjoy, and that's mostly due to the combat. Which is why I find it such a shame that they couldn't fully fix the camera for certain important fights and areas.
Fallout 4 is the worst of the Bethesda games, no doubt, but it's about the same quality-wise as FF15. It has different issues in different areas. Its systems and mechanics on a world level are more intricate and accomplished though, of that I have no doubt.
Witcher 3's combat is a love it or hate it thing, but just about everything else about the game is perfect. The big thing with TW3 is it gives you a decent number of outs away from combat if you so choose, and also the combat isn't bad - it's just 'fine'. People find it doesn't click with them or vaguely dislike it, but they rarely hate it.
I guess what I'm saying is this: there's a piece of TW3 that is sort of middling, but none of it is bad. There are areas of, say, FF15 that are just outright bad. Same for Fallout 4. This is why TW3 is a 90-something and those two are in the mid-80s.
There are good reviews and bad reviews, like. Some reviews come from people who don't 'get' the game, others come from people who are hyper-attuned to it to an exaggerated degree. That's the point of an aggregate site; the bad reviews are balanced out by the overly enthusiastic reviews and the truth, as always, is found somewhere in the middle.
Look, I do this job for a living - I have for about eight years - and all I can say is that this is bollocks. There is a basic, inherent bias in some that doesn't like anime art styles or whatever (something that impacts stuff like Tales & Persona, but never so much FF thanks to FF's Western bent anyway), but beyond that it's absolute rubbish.
Beyond rubbish, it's honestly a tad insulting to people who work bloody hard for the most part to be impartial and thoughtful in approaching every single game they have to tackle. I work hard at it, and I didn't score TW3 more than FF15 (9 vs 8) and Fallout 4 the same as FF15 out of an inherent bias - it's because I enjoyed TW3 more and found it to be a more accomplished, impressive game. I wasn't making "behind the scenes deals" (even more insulting, tbh) or being vaguely cloak-and-dagger bias racist against Japan - if I was I wouldn't have scored Street Fighter 5 than Killer Instinct, or Fire Emblem Fates higher than Fallout.
I agree that F4 is the worst of the Fallout games. I don't necessarily agree that it's about the same quality-wise as FFXV. The world was more intricate, but I can only recall a few memorable portions and situations. I actually liked the central story far more than the side content -- until it completely fell apart at
. After that point, it was "why do I care about this world?" It didn't help that it didn't really feel like Fallout. Speech and diplomacy were secondary to fighting - and combat wasn't anything to write home about.
To be sure, I'm not saying Fallout 4 was a bad game - just nowhere near the 10/10s it received. I'd put it at a 7.5 or 8 myself, depending on
how much Preston Garvey pissed me off.
I appreciated your FFXV review, though I would have scored it higher - thoughtful and thorough. It is very apparent that the game came in white hot with seemingly large chunks missing and some half-realized concepts. But what it does well, it does very well. It is so much fun to play.
Sleep-deprived commentary: Playing FFXV's real-time tactical combat system, I realized why I prefer playing the old FF games on iPad or mobile systems. I can turn off encounters. The rock-paper-scissors and/or line dancing of random battles is just plain boring to me. If the game requires any grinding, the mobile nature allows more passive compartmentalization of these menial tasks.
I'll just say Final Fantasy XV getting a lower (or similar) Metascore than Final Fantasy XIII - which is by far the most divisive game in the series - is disappointing at best, and will probably be talked about a lot in the years to come. I'll judge the game once I play it.
I think you took my post a bit too personally sadly. I was writing about the nature of reviews in general, not just about FFXV.
My main points was for people to not rely heavily on reviews and to make up their own minds. Reviews give people an idea of what to expect. That's it. However if you go by the behaviours of gamers nowadays, it is an undisputed fact that is used as ammo for hateful arguments.
If you read what I wrote carefully, I was mostly aiming at the reviewers who are deliberately obtuse about a game's mechanics and how it works, who then in turn write articles that blatantly show they honestly didn't understand the game at all. I even mentioned a reviewer who complained about magic mechanics, and who didn't even understand obvious character relations despite the game telling the player many times as an example and reference for said obtuse behaviour.
I saw the comments section for that review btw, 90% of which were from people who never played the game but already made up there minds that the game sucks and the entire development team should be fired. This was a sad thing to see happening.
I'm not a game developer but if my creation was that easily cast aside and dismantled all because someone didn't take the time to learn and understand it, who then did a poor job on reporting it, I'd be pretty hurt.
As for the last section you quoted me on, again I was referring to the group of people who do participate in such dealings. I do recall reading and watching a video about a former reviewer who did admit that such things went on behind the scenes and he didn't like it at all.
As with every industry, there are good and honest people who do things the right way, and there are bad eggs who don't. Corruption exists in every industry, but so do people who have great, hardworking souls who do profound and fantastic work too.
I think scores are too subjective when it comes to interpretation so it's not something people will ever agree upon. No right or wrong, just whether you agree with it or not.
If you took this as a personal attack, then that was not my intent.
I merely wanted people to know that the most important opinion of all in regards to any game is their own.
People using review scores as extreme hate speech ammo is a very disheartening thing to see, and it's something I see in every forum I frequent.
I hope you can see now why I'm wary of reviews and scores in general now?
Edit: I think I should say that I do my living working for an industry that has quite a bad rep since 90% of the people who partake in it are scammy a-holes - literally.
With that said, I would be perfectly alright if someone said my industry was corrupt and had behind the scenes stuff going on, because there is truth in it and it does not take away from the good people who do their work ethically at all.
Since I personally know that I do not partake in such practices, I wouldn't feel insulted but I am aware that there are other people who do.
Like I said every industry has corruption.
Again, do not take my post as a personal insult to your body of work. I should've mentioned I've read good articles from gaming websites too but felt that wasn't necessary since my post was cautionary in nature. Clearly I was mistaken.
Found a very interesting post over on gaf.
"The fact that recent versions of IX and X, both the same exact games with all those 9s and 10s reviews back when they are released, now score in the same 82-86 range in 2016 just shows how much ratings have changed".
Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
If past FF games were released in this day and age, would they have been as well received now as they were then?
I actually started wondering about that a bit, especially given that past FFs like VII-X were reviewed with far less critics (PSX FFs around 20-24, PS2 FFs 50-60s excluding XI) during their times.
Separate names with a comma.